"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[notorial dissent]

That is my impression as well. My understanding is that once Parliament passes the legislation and the Royal assent is given, then it is a done deal and is beyond court competence. That seems to be the primary misunderstanding with thee PLD'ers, they seem to think you operate under the American system where the courts can and do strike down legislation all the time. They don't have that capacity in the UK.

[JimUk1]

That is a very sensible reply in my opinion. It's not the lawyers that are against them, it is the actual law, and they see no sense in tilting at windmills.

It might appear sensible, and maybe I am reading into it too much.

But it's doing nothing to extinguish the flames at PLD, implying the left wing lawyers would be relishing the chance to bankrupt a political party, with no seats in Parliament.

Says to me they believe there is a conspiracy to finish them off; when ukip did a better job themselves.

[Arthur Rubin]

This may be a UK thing or a PLD thing, but I always called it "premises", rather than "premesis".

Not that he's likely even to get promises of premises....

[exiledscouser]

Right, I "premise" not to get drawn into a discussion regarding spelling or the use of variants of this word.

On the Scottish version of PLD Brian has had a disappointing response from his local (Motherwell & Wishaw) MP Marion Fellows;

Brian
I regret that it has taken me so long to rspond to you, but questions regarding the Magna Carta are not in the normal run of queries I receive.

As I am not a legal expert I hesitate to comment on this and in particular on Article 60. It is, however, my belief that as the Magna Carta is an England only document it has no relevance to Scotland. Scotland has always had a separate legal system.

Should you wish to obtain a considered legal response to your query I have to ask you to consult a solicitor.

Marion Fellows MP

This does not go down well and they take the honourable member to task for her 'belief' regarding Art. 60.

This is a bit rich when the whole premiss (oops..) of PLD is founded on a 'belief'.

Anyway, why do the Scot PLD'ers think that a charter, signed by an English king under duress and which is largely defunct should have any bearing at all on them? It's not even as though Scotland was ruled from England - they had their own King at the time, Alexander the Second who reigned between 1214 and 1249, he was 16 when he ascended the throne, the son of William the First or "The Lion" who reigned between 1165 until his death in 1214.

William is famous for failing to capture Northumberland and make the Geordies part of Scotland. His son however did side with the English barons who were against King John and took the opportunity to do a bit of pillaging in Berwick on Tweed. In fact after that victory in 1216 Alexander's army kept going all the way south, hitting the Channel at Dover. Unfortunately King John chose that moment to die, everyone changed allegiances and Alex had to return home.

Our good King John might have been the Lord of Ireland at the time so technically our Hibernian friends could claim to be bound by MC but Scotland was an independent entity in 1215.

I'm going to guess that the spirit of independence (from the modern UK) runs deep in our present-day PLD gang north of the border so it is a bit of an Orwellian example of Doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) that they would swear fealty to and think themselves bound by archaic English legislation written by a (then) foreign monarch.

Connor Wilkinson fancies himself as something of a constitutional expert and gives several reasons why, in his view your average Jock is bound by Magnum Carter;

Act of Settlement 1700, incorporating this constitutional statute into Scots Law by virtue of Article II. And according to the Act of Settlement 1700 [ARTICLE IV] “the laws of England are the birthright of the People thereof.” this sentiment is also expressly declared by statute 12 & 13

But! But! That's a ACT and it contains STATUTES both of which any true PLD'er should utterly reject. Forever! No exceptions!

More Doublethink.

Methinks.

[TheNewSaint]

It might appear sensible, and maybe I am reading into it too much.

But it's doing nothing to extinguish the flames at PLD, implying the left wing lawyers would be relishing the chance to bankrupt a political party, with no seats in Parliament.

Says to me they believe there is a conspiracy to finish them off; when ukip did a better job themselves.

I read it the same way you did. I think the writer meant to say "We don't want to expend our limited resources on something that has no chance of succeeding. Our opponents would love to see us make such a mistake." But it does come off a bit like "they're out to get us."

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZS2mEHG9E

Some bearded Magna Cartist interfering in an eviction, it is a bit old being dated April 2017 but I don't recall having seen it.

First one I have actually seen with genuine article 61 woo.

Nothing much happens after the first 12 minutes. Not that much happens before that. There is the beginning of a bit of action in the last minute then the recording ends.

[The Seventh String]

But! But! That's a ACT and it contains STATUTES both of which any true PLD'er should utterly reject. Forever! No exceptions!

More Doublethink.

Methinks.

Not only is the Act of Settlement 1701 a statute, so were the several Magna Cartas.....

Quite how the English Act of Settlement 1701, which laid down the qualifications, job description and employment contract for English monarchs of England imports clauses from Magna Carta 1215 into Scottish law in 1701, a time when Scotland and England still had separate parliaments until the Acts of Union joined them together in 1707 beats me. Especially as the Acts of Union make it very clear that England (and Wales) kept the English legal system and laws and Scotland kept Scottish laws and the Scottish legal system.

Maybe it’s the same reason I just can’t find the bit in the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 that means “everyone’s dead, their body is lost forever somewhere or other overseas so names written in capitals are what makes the currency worth anything” either. I’ve tried my best. I’ve tried reading it with my glasses on, without my glasses on, sober, less than sober, upside down, sidways in a mirror and once by candlelight. But all in vain. Nothing works.

I guess I’m just someone who wasn’t born with the gift of magical viewing thinking.

PS. If any passing lawful rebels want to take a look at the Act of Settlement and see what it’s really about for themselves, it can be found here - http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statut ... 38#h3-0003

[aesmith]

Any ideas what this lady is on about .. Karen Martin
Something about "attempted manslaughter" which seems a irrational concept. See posts a link to a video, but that's over an hour long.

Thank you for accepting my request.

Hi all.

Have kind of read the pinned post.
Could really do with some advice pronto.

I have a massive case. 100% well documented of attempted corporate manslaughter equating to lifelong complex trauma. I've studied my backside off for six years in and out of academia. I had to flee my own life to reach refuge in the same country, obviously UK, to a different county.

It's reaching a crisis point right now.

It must be due for court as I've contacted everyone. I've got recordings of every area of authorities. I'm a single mom, being ostracised and had all my incomes stopped dead with demands for overpayment.

I've got validation from Mental health which I only managed to get through me finally getting an understanding of my lifelong defamation of character by uk systems and laws for which I've committed no crime but have been subjected to scapegoating, abandonment and lifelong humiliation by acts of ignorance, neglect and corporate terrorism directed solely at me previously to my study and now because I'm an expert in lifelong complex trauma and the system being set at default to divide the fortunate and unfortunate, for which I was the latter. I know my European human rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated to the point of no development through life keeping my mind am imprisoned and traumatised child with no access at all to services that are said to protect people like me. I have more recently been subjected to xenophobia under European law and the UK government are trying to block of from getting my case into national courts in order for me to gain justice and peace, compensation to leave this country and get laws changed.

I'm a stand alone rebellion and fighting for my European Rights to be allowed and I believe my case papers (although I have another copy) have been blocked from leaving the UK which has been sent by recorded delivery to the European Court of human rights Strassberg.

My recordings are no YouTube and Facebook and prove my level of intelligence to be of expertise so impeccably astute that I'm sharing what I have.

Who's the main contact in this group please???

My case involves social services, education, doctors, police, housing, benefits and so called honour based hate crime of the said bodies and others.

Here's a video to give you an idea. This is not spam. I am very real and very serious about these fluffins not killing me off before the lid is taken off and exposed on my absolute and substantial evidence to back my claims.

Thank you in advance.

Karen

Oh and hi all. Pleased to meet you

[Burnaby49]

For elucidation on the legal efficacy of the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 check out this post of mine from four years ago when Bernard Yankson used the Act as the cornerstone of his lawsuit against the Canadian government in an effort to get Canada to cough up the $50,000,000 he was owed on his daughter's birth bond. Sadly the court was too ignorant of legacy legislation to understand how it proved the correctness of Bernie's lawsuit.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597#p162432

[Siegfried Shrink]

The first time I saw the Cest qui Vie Act of 1666 mentioned I checked it out and it was quite clear in scope and purpose ,circumstances of use and remedy. Quite short too. It was so obviouly not what the person citing it said it was that I got interested enough to try and trace the earliest appearance of the misapplied version with little success. The actual law is still in force slightly revised.

The whole farrago of nonsense appears to have sprung full blown from some inventive guru and it is remarkable that it has gone on to be the fount and origin of so much misapplied theorising. The famous TDA account fad can be traced back to this misused act through the Cest qui Vie Trust a feature that appears nowhere in the act at all and the legally dead birth certificate thing plus the famous legal name fraud and the strawman all appear have their roots in this one misguided reading of ancient law.

At some stage the CQV twaddle seems to have merged with the original US Freeman twaddle to form an unholy hybrid of misinformation which showed uncommon hybrid vigour to last through countless failures to the present time.

Whoever it was that introduced the rubbish reading of the act in the first place has a lot to answer for.

The egregious Jordan Maxwell may be to blame, he has been around for some time and it is just the type of crap he'd love.

[Comrade Sharik]

Any ideas what this lady is on about .. Karen Martin

From a brief sampling of her output, she appears to have serious mental health issues. It speaks volumes that the PLD crew don't seem to be able to see this, and are reinforcing her delusions with their supportive responses.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Any ideas what this lady is on about .. Karen Martin
Something about "attempted manslaughter" which seems a irrational concept. See posts a link to a video, but that's over an hour long.

What a remarkable woman. Not in a good way but remarkable. The attempted corporate manslaughter is apparently her take on the entire state social services system.

She has uploaded 50 odd recorded conversations etc. She has not proved all that popular, I have 5 You Tube subscribers and have never published anything, she has 6 subscriers.

"It's the system that has let me down and pushed me into this corner"

[notorial dissent]

Any ideas what this lady is on about .. Karen Martin

From a brief sampling of her output, she appears to have serious mental health issues. It speaks volumes that the PLD crew don't seem to be able to see this, and are reinforcing her delusions with their supportive responses.

I think mental health issues is putting it mildly. She may well have some serious issues but if so they are all buried beneath the delusion and paranoia.

[Arthur Rubin]

Something about "attempted manslaughter" which seems a irrational concept.

I disagree. Attempting an act, so reckless, that if it had resulted in death, might be "attempted manslaughter". Alternatively, according to Quora, killing someone in the heat of emotion would be voluntary manslaughter, so attempting it might be attempted manslaughter.

Not that her concept is at all rational.

[AndyPandy]

Any ideas what this lady is on about .. Karen Martin

From a brief sampling of her output, she appears to have serious mental health issues. It speaks volumes that the PLD crew don't seem to be able to see this, and are reinforcing her delusions with their supportive responses.

I think mental health issues is putting it mildly. She may well have some serious issues but if so they are all buried beneath the delusion and paranoia.

She hates this Country and wants to leave it, but wants the state to fund her move and give her money to live abroad (it isn't clear where exactly she wants to go).

It's her right, apparently, and by denying her this right then it's attempted corporate manslaughter

[Siegfried Shrink]

She may want to go to Turkey.

[longdog]

Being forced to pay for the support of your children? Why that's TREASON and A61 will save you...

James Jaffa Hargreaves

Has anybody had any luck with child maintenance service


David Robinson

Not sue if anyone has tackled them with article 61 but no reason why it shouldn't getthem to back off.....if you want something from them then its different seeing that they tend to back off it doesn't help much.


James Jaffa Hargreaves

Thanks David I can only try


Rikki Millington

I ended up playing ignorance and going for cash in hand work and becoming a poker player lol it worked! This was before I became aware of article 61.


Nige Bray

Child maintenance service? Wtf does that mean?


Rikki Millington

Actually yea lol they were called child support agency when they were after me...


Nige Bray

They like to change words that mean sod all.


Rikki Millington

Now they are there to manage the maintainance not support the child


James Jaffa

Hargreaves I know I am not against paying for the children in have them every 2 weeks but I am not going to pay them 20% just to pass it over

And yet Dismal Dave claims 'lawful rebellion' isn't just about saving money. If supporting your own kids isn't a legitimate claim on your cash I don't know what is. Perhaps I should get a special government grant to pay for feeding my four rescue dogs... Why should I have to pay for them just because I chose to take them in?

[longdog]

Another genius in the process of turning £100 and three points into £600 and six points... And for some inexplicable reason he seems to think he's winning...

Brian Williams

M20 variable speed limit. First letter sent back unopened. Then signed my oath. Second letter, requesting drivers name sent back with Conditional Acceptance. Third letter, requesting drivers name sent back with Default and Opportunity to cure.
This letter seems like a good result? My question then. Should I not bother sending the further 2 letters to Mr Policeman, but just wait to see if magistrates do consider doing anything, then start process again?

[aesmith]

Yep, egged on by the others even though there's been an unbroken history of failure with road traffic offences. By the way remember the last one Mark Abbott managed to get his up to £1,200 before his mum paid.

On a related subject the post below shows Crabbie having a rant about someone declining his advice regarding a Dartford Crossing penalty (that will be a decriminalised council matter I think?)

I gave them some advice as to what I would do and offered to sort it out, it was such an easy problem to get rid of. To cut a long story short, the £5 fee had turned into £616 in the hands of http://www.jbw.co.uk bailiffs/enforcement agents. They phoned the bailiffs number and the bailiff said if it wasn't paid today there would be another £200 to pay, so they paid it. Can you believe that? What would you do in that situation?

[aesmith]

Something about "attempted manslaughter" which seems a irrational concept.

I disagree. Attempting an act, so reckless, that if it had resulted in death, might be "attempted manslaughter". Alternatively, according to Quora, killing someone in the heat of emotion would be voluntary manslaughter, so attempting it might be attempted manslaughter.

Doesn't voluntary manslaughter require either Loss of Control, or Diminished Responsibility to distinguish it from murder? I don't see how either can apply to a corporate body.