The comedy court of Common Law

[Gregg]

If the guy dumb enough to try to sue you over the ocean has a lawyer dumb enough to help him, send a reply. Send as many replies as you can think of reasons to send, and then send a few for no reason.

Billable hours, kids, billable hours.

[The Seventh String]

Well, all I took from that site was 'They stole my goats' and the writer is as mad as they come

Both insane mad and angry mad.

Well, to be fair and to give credit where it’s due, he’s compiled what might be the best single collection of links to the they think WHAT??? utterly barking side of the web.

If Neelu's local underground station is a few stops after Barking this guy’s living somewhere beyond Glasgow central. He really puts our UK cranks, wingnuts, lawful rebels public nuisances, and casters of mad assertions in general to shame.

Mind you, he doesn’t seem to have hit on the idea of setting up his own court and sitting in judgement on his own cases yet so there’s still room for hope that Team Nutcase UK might yet salvage at least some of our national standing.

Come on CLC, up your game and get enforcing those judgements. Never mind the consequent fines or months spent in nick, your country’s reputation is at stake!

[eric]

Well, to be fair and to give credit where it’s due, he’s compiled what might be the best single collection of links to the they think WHAT??? utterly barking side of the web.

Some of the links are dead but it's a pretty fair compendium of the weird and wonderful. It's useful to be at least aware of this collection of wing nuts since the same names crop up too regularly to be coincidence. As a good example, people have asked how Suzanne Holland, Parsons, and Darryl McDowell came into contact with each other. Pretty simple really - they all (along with Bryfogle, Holland's partner) frequent sites espousing the values of Texe Marrs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texe_Marrs) especially those where somebody is ranting about the loss of their children. Consider it a religious form of Dean Kory or Boisjoli's "save my children" campaigns.

[Burnaby49]

I'd go more with my mother's theory on how such groups self-identify;

"Birds of a feather flock together."

[Dr. Caligari]

A UK based internet acquaintance of mine was threatened, by email, with a libel suit by a lawyer from South Carolina who demanded a postal address to serve papers. He rang the lawyer up and asked what actual consequences there would be if his client won and was told any property he had in SC or maybe even the USA could be seized. On this basis he gave the guy his mailing address and in due course was 'served'.

Needless to say he Arkell and Pressdram'd it and never head anything else. He claims he has the title page of the suit hanging in his toilet.

I wish somebody would sue me

Not a smart way to respond, IMHO. If the U.S. plaintiff had sufficient will and wherewithall, he could try to turn his South Carolina judgment into a U.K. judgement. By voluntarily consenting to service and then not defending the case on the merits, your acquaintance arguably waived any right to defend the suit.

It sounds like the U.S. plaintiff isn't doing anything with his judgment, so your acquaintance lucked out, but this isn't a course of conduct I'd recommend.

[notorial dissent]

I'd go more with my mother's theory on how such groups self-identify;

"Birds of a feather flock together."

When you are a (krank) minority of one it is hard to find anyone to listen to your tale of woe and abuse at the hands of whoever otherwise, the defining problem of course is that those particular cloacal feather DON'T tend to get along with ANYONE so such gatherings usually break out in to the inevitable donnybrooks. They do provide a lot of free amusement, at least as long as you are not on their attention list(s).

[Burnaby49]

Not a smart way to respond, IMHO. If the U.S. plaintiff had sufficient will and wherewithall, he could try to turn his South Carolina judgment into a U.K. judgement. By voluntarily consenting to service and then not defending the case on the merits, your acquaintance arguably waived any right to defend the suit.

It sounds like the U.S. plaintiff isn't doing anything with his judgment, so your acquaintance lucked out, but this isn't a course of conduct I'd recommend.

Exactly what I saw happen in a court hearing I attended and reported on Quatloos. A local Vancouver man, had, apparently on a whim, purchased a castle in Scotland. Got buyer's remourse, refused to pay, and was sued in Scotland. He didn't respond so the vendor won a default judgment. The problem was how to collect. Process servers tried to nail him with a copy of the judgment but he avoided this by not being publicly available. He drove from his high security garage at home to his high security garage at work and avoided being in arm's length of servers. So, at the court hearing I attended, they got permission for substitute service. As I wrote;

First up was our castle in Scotland. A local had bought it and then stiffed the seller. Lawyer was trying to serve papers on the debtor to enforce a Scottish default judgment but the wily chap kept dodging the process servers. So the lawyer was requesting court approval for a Substitute Service where the plaintiff could just leave the papers with the commissionaire at the debtors swanky high-rise condo. Approved.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 74#p163974

[longdog]

Not a smart way to respond, IMHO. If the U.S. plaintiff had sufficient will and wherewithall, he could try to turn his South Carolina judgment into a U.K. judgement. By voluntarily consenting to service and then not defending the case on the merits, your acquaintance arguably waived any right to defend the suit.

It sounds like the U.S. plaintiff isn't doing anything with his judgment, so your acquaintance lucked out, but this isn't a course of conduct I'd recommend.

I don't think there was ever really any chance the case would go to trial as it was clearly totally devoid of merit. The plaintiff was just trying to scare the respondent which failed miserably.

I believe the 'respondent' took legal advice in the UK which amounted to "Tell them to fuck off" and that the UK courts were highly unlikely in the circumstances to have any truck with a US libel judgement. Clearly the correct forum for a defamation suit would've been the high court in the UK and the first thing any court would ask is "Why didn't you sue him here?"

[Gregg]

Especially as getting a libel judgement in the UK is almost infinitely easier than getting one in the USA.

[TheHallouminati]

TheHallouminati wrote on Rekha Patel thread:
Robert White had a lovely time meeting 80-100 'like-minded' people at the training day and at the Kangaroo court trial itself. Has anyone heard anything about sentencing for the 'treasonous' accused?

Saturday, 27 October 2018 at 13:00
pin
HINDLEY LABOUR CLUB 2 ROMFORD STREET WIGAN WN2 3RB
25 went · 54 interested
Details
It has come to the attention of the Common Law Court that not enough training is being offered from us, to educate and develop those of us that need to see change in our lifetime, not in our grandchildren's era, but now.

On that note we are offering the opportunity to attend a training day, at the above venue for all those interested in convening Common Law Courts.

​Spaces are limited and we ask that only those of you that are committed to see this through, attend.

COMMON LAW COURT

ENFORCEMENT AGENTS

​In addition to the above training, we are looking to appoint Common Law Court Enforcement Agents throughout the UK. All those interested becoming an Enforcement Agent, will be required to attend, under go training and be sworn in.

​Anyone interested in becoming an Enforcement Agent will also have to have completed their birth declaration with the Common Law Court.

Recent posts
Robert White — Good to meet lots of likeminded people over the weekend well done to all those that made the effort, there were between 80 & 100 people for each day.

Rob Leeming — So sad.i couldnt make event.i know how educational on the common law this would have been.Could you please have another one of these events asap.i will help def fund.

Mark Braithwait — What time is it likely to finish Rob?

[Siegfried Shrink]

I'd love to turn up for some enforcement training but I don't think I could avoid laughing, and in any case I am washing the cat that day. Shame.

[JimUk1]

80-100 people?
So he’s mathematically illiterate as well as stupid.

https://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/ ... 60&t=69493

Does anyone remember the “Lawful Peace officers”.

I’m guessing nobody at CLC bothered to check where they are now.

[TheHallouminati]

Wow I didn't realise the 'Lawful Peace Officers' were allowed to carry firearms. But no need for alarm, they are not allowed to "intentionally kill anyone" and they must by "psychologically competent".
Phew that's OK then.

3. Specific Tasks and Functions of the Sheriffs – Mandate, Protocols and Extent of their Powers

The Common Law Sheriffs and those they deputize have five specific jobs to do:

a) Maintain the safety and operations of the Common Law Courts, their officers, juries and witnesses;

b) Serve Court Summonses, detain and bring into Court summoned parties, and enforce the Warrants and final Verdicts of the Court;

c) As part of their Enforcement role, assist in the seizure of forfeited property and assets of convicted individuals and bodies, arrest these individuals and their accomplices, and aid in the disestablishment of convicted criminal bodies.

d) Conduct and protect Court-authorized Crime Scene Investigations, including at mass grave sites, crime scenes, and other suspected locations of evidence relevant to Court cases.

e) Generally aid the people in assisting the Court and enforcing its decisions and verdicts, and in actively establishing and maintaining such Courts in the community....

...In executing their duties, Sheriffs and their deputies may with the proper Court warrants enter any dwelling, physically detain, arrest and incarcerate any man or woman regardless of their authority, and seize any thing relevant to the Court and its operations and verdicts.

It is understood that the Sheriffs and deputies may only employ reasonable and proportionate force in the execution of their duties. They may not act against the Law itself or intentionally kill anyone, nor inflict harm or suffering on anyone except to defend themselves and the verdicts and operations of the Court. They are authorized by the Court to carry and use firearms and other protective devices, but must be Court-licensed to do so and receive the necessary professional training in the use of firearms and in self-defence.

It is understood that all Sheriffs and deputies must be physically and psychologically competent to perform their duties. They cannot be infirm or incapable of robust activity. As part of their licensing, they must agree to annual physical and psychological examinations by accredited specialists, under the supervision of the Citizen Prosecutor's Office of the Court.

[notorial dissent]

Pure comedy gold.

[The Seventh String]

They are authorized by the Court to carry and use firearms

Which they won’t be able to obtain legally without the required certificates. Which they won’t get if they explain they reasonably require a firearm for the purposes of imposing the “judgements” of a pretend “court”. If they already have certification they will almost certainly lose it the first time they attempt to carry out any of their “duties” and it comes to the attention of the police, whether they took their firearm with them or not.

Entering a property or land while carrying a firearm without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence called “armed trespass”. Somehow I doubt the real courts will consider armed people entering a property to carry out a CLC warrant attempted kidnap, theft of property or unlawful arrest to be “reasonable”.

Not to mention the other interesting breaches of both statutory and common law these “armed enforcers” would be committing. Or the conspiracy charges those ordering them about might face.

The CLC is rapidly acquiring all the traits of gangsters or a terrorist operation, except that the real criminals are usually not stupid enough to announce their plans and intentions on the internet for all to see.

[John Uskglass]

The CLC is rapidly acquiring all the traits of gangsters or a terrorist operation,

Judging by the content of some of the posts on their forum, there's a strong link with the 'alt-right'. As it appears that the security services are increasingly focusing their attentions on neo-nazis (see todays BBC news - for example), and the CCOCL has already made threats against public servants, I suspect that it may only be a matter of time before they find themselves having a little chat with Mr Plod.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I consider it to be a form of live actionn role playing or a very badly dressed form of 'cosplay'.

[TheRambler]

They are authorized by the Court to carry and use firearms

Which they won’t be able to obtain legally without the required certificates. Which they won’t get if they explain they reasonably require a firearm for the purposes of imposing the “judgements” of a pretend “court”. If they already have certification they will almost certainly lose it the first time they attempt to carry out any of their “duties” and it comes to the attention of the police, whether they took their firearm with them or not.

I think that you will find that Firearms Licensing Managers (FLM) at least and most Firearms Enquiry Officers (FEO) have some degree of awareness of FMOTL. Quite a few have found that their beliefs aren’t considered to be compatible with the Firearms Act and have had certificates revoked as they are no longer considered to be a “fit person”. They can of course appeal to the Crown Court but that in itself puts them in a rather awkward position, not to mention bearing the cost of the appeal. Usually their behaviour following revocation is what seals the matter anyway, Firearm Certificate appeals are unusual in that the police may introduce evidence gained after the event to support the revocation action.

Their have been a couple of attempts to utilise S11(4) Miniature Rifle Ranges to circumvent the requirement to hold a certificate. Suffice to,say, that in these cases it has not turned out well for the individuals concerned.

TheRambler

[longdog]

Somehow I doubt the real courts will consider armed people entering a property to carry out a CLC warrant attempted kidnap, theft of property or unlawful arrest to be “reasonable”.

They'd be lucky if they survived long enough to appear in court. Given their propensity for spouting shit they'd be quite likely to try to convince armed cops that they were sticking to their second amendment rights and they'd surrender their gun when they prised it from their cold dead ha... BANG BANG BANG!!!!

Not so much 'suicide by cop' as 'death by misadventure by cop'.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I have always wondered about that 'cold dead hands' thing.

Warm, freshly dead hands is more likely and no actual prising is required, only after rigor has set in, many hours later, would the fingers be stiff, and this wears off after a while.
It is also possible that the weapon may simply fall from no longer tensed hands, saving some prising even if you don't get there very quickly.

Anyway, they are doing it wrong, everyone knows saying "I do not consent" is a bullet proof defense. Everyone except someone who has tried it of course.