Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[Pottapaug1938]

Remember the old Maxims of Law?
HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. The primary users of commercial law and those who best understand and codified it in Western Civilization are the Jews. This is Mosaic Law they have had for more than 3500 years and is based upon Babylonian commerce. (Book of Job; Mat. 10:22; This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as "truth in commerce" because it hasn't been rebutted and has left the battlefield. Governments allegedly exists to resolve disputes, conflicts and truth. Governments allegedly exist to be substitutes for the dueling field and the battlefield for such disputes, conflicts of affidavits of truth are resolved peaceably and reasonably instead of by violence. So people can take their disputes into court and have them all opened up and resolved, instead of going out and marching ten paces and turning to kill or injure. Legal Maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it".

You are clearly not a lawyer. I am a retired lawyer, and there are many active lawyers here; and we will all tell you that your premises are pure, unadulterated horsefeathers. You win cases, in court, not by citing general maxims of dubious applicability or veracity; you win them by citing the holdings, in previous appellate court decisions, which have some relevance to your case.

[aesmith]

.. This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as "truth in commerce" because it hasn't been rebutted and has left the battlefield.

This is something in that in civil cases, allegations made by the claimant and not disputed by the defendant may well be treated as agreed.

[Hercule Parrot]

Remember the old Maxims of Law?
HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. The primary users of commercial law and those who best understand and codified it in Western Civilization are the Jews. This is Mosaic Law they have had for more than 3500 years and is based upon Babylonian commerce. (Book of Job; Mat. 10:22; This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as "truth in commerce" because it hasn't been rebutted and has left the battlefield. Governments allegedly exists to resolve disputes, conflicts and truth. Governments allegedly exist to be substitutes for the dueling field and the battlefield for such disputes, conflicts of affidavits of truth are resolved peaceably and reasonably instead of by violence. So people can take their disputes into court and have them all opened up and resolved, instead of going out and marching ten paces and turning to kill or injure. Legal Maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it".

You are clearly not a lawyer. I am a retired lawyer, and there are many active lawyers here; and we will all tell you that your premises are pure, unadulterated horsefeathers. You win cases, in court, not by citing general maxims of dubious applicability or veracity; you win them by citing the holdings, in previous appellate court decisions, which have some relevance to your case.

Absolutely right. The cited "Maxim" does not have any effect in UK law, never has and never will. It is copied from a list of similar nonsense assertions which appear to be US-related*, but probably never had any effect or standing there either.
(* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4F ... Qztag/edit)

I challenge Marital Artist to rebut my 68 page Affadavit, under commercial penalty of perjury, answering every point fully to my satisfaction, endorsed by a Notary and signed with a red ink thumbprint as a living flesh and blood sentient-man, and filed with the UK postmaster general within 72 hrs. Failure to do so will be an irrevocable contract that he must eat his hat, in accordance with the doctrine of tacit procuration, stare decisis, res judicata and collateral estoppel.

[Hercule Parrot]

.. This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as "truth in commerce" because it hasn't been rebutted and has left the battlefield.

This is something in that in civil cases, allegations made by the claimant and not disputed by the defendant may well be treated as agreed.

Where those allegations are made within a court hearing, yes.

[notorial dissent]

And even then, if the affidavit is patently bull dookey, the judge can and will disregard it. Which is in a sense rebutting it.

[letissier14]

Because someone calls out Chrisy Morris as a liar on Facebook, Morris decides to visit that persons house and take a picture of himself outside the house and post it all over the internet. Absolutely disgusting.

[longdog]

Remember the old Maxims of Law?

Is that maxims of law or the actual law?

HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT.

Lose the battle or loses the war?

The primary users of commercial law and those who best understand and codified it in Western Civilization are the Jews. This is Mosaic Law they have had for more than 3500 years and is based upon Babylonian commerce. (Book of Job; Mat. 10:22;

JEWSDIDDIT!!!

Incidentally Matthew 10:22 reads "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved". This has precisely fuck all to do with your argument.

This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as "truth in commerce" because it hasn't been rebutted and has left the battlefield.

Please cite a decision of a court citing this principle of unrebutted affidavits being 'truth in commerce'.

Governments allegedly exists to resolve disputes, conflicts and truth. Governments allegedly exist to be substitutes for the dueling field and the battlefield for such disputes

History's not your strong suit is it?

conflicts of affidavits of truth are resolved peaceably and reasonably instead of by violence. So people can take their disputes into court and have them all opened up and resolved, instead of going out and marching ten paces and turning to kill or injure.

This is the nearest your rambling gibberish gets to the truth. You seem to realise, belatedly, that courts settle legal matters not a load of 'affidavits of truth'.

Legal Maxim: "He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it".

Source please.

[He Who Knows]

Letissier wrote: "Because someone calls out Chrisy Morris as a liar on Facebook, Morris decides to visit that persons house and take a picture of himself outside the house and post it all over the internet. Absolutely disgusting."

Bets are on as to which criminal offence he gets done for first: stalking/harassment OR non payment of £1,004 court fine for obstructing a bailiff.

[AndyPandy]

Because someone calls out Chrisy Morris as a liar on Facebook, Morris decides to visit that persons house and take a picture of himself outside the house and post it all over the internet. Absolutely disgusting.

He's a vile creature, uneducated, thick, bully boy - he must make his Mother soooooooooo proud !

[rumpelstilzchen]

Hi MartialArtist, welcome to Quatloos.

Remember the old Maxims of Law?
HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT

I will take from those words that you are saying if Morris abandoned the court before the case was concluded it automatically means he lost and the prosecution was successful. My understanding is that Morris did indeed lose. There is another problem that Morris undoubtedly has: His understanding of law surrounding writs, warrants, bailiffs etc etc is in no way similar to the understanding of the entire legal profession regarding those things.

As for the rest of your post, I won't bother quoting it here but I will sum it up and rebut it in its entirety by sharing with you another legal maxim:
"Man who has hand in pocket feels cocky all day"
You get my drift?

[Penny Wise]

All going a little bit mad on Facebook today. Chrisy Morris is challenging someone to a fight (very mature and grown up). All very much white handbags at dawn.

However, I do not think they can find a club to hold the fight due to the requirement that Chrisy needs a box to stand on to reach the other guy.

In response to the fight challenge, good old Ben Lowrey (former deep in the rabbit hole freeman and now a £150 seller of how to do a handstand on youtube seller - I kid you not) wants to challenge Chrisy to an intelligence contest.

Stevie Wonder leading Ray Charles springs to mind on that one

[Wozzle]

Because someone calls out Chrisy Morris as a liar on Facebook, Morris decides to visit that persons house and take a picture of himself outside the house and post it all over the internet. Absolutely disgusting.

Did he though? Something strange about the photo (other than Crissy) - Look at the bricks slightly above his head - they look bent? Has he added himself via photoshop?

[notorial dissent]

One of the first rules in the Bully's guide to well everything, is DON'T PICK ON SOMEONE BIGGER OR STRONGER THAN YOU. and it should also probably include smarter than you, but that pretty well covers ALMOST everyone in the known universe when talking about Chrisy.

They make jokes about punch drunk boxers, and then Chrisy goes and personifies them for you.

[letissier14]

So self acclaimed hard man and BNP candidate posts a video of himself challenging Dez (from Freeman Fails) to a boxing match, which of course has to be on his terms, in his area and when he says so. He then posts a poster advertising the so called boxing fight taking place on the 3rd August, though of course he failed to let Dez anything know about it. So when it doesn't take place, he can tell all his supporters that Dez bottled it.

Funny how, that after being challenged to a Youtube online debate with Badda last night, on the topic of law, bailiffs and anything else legal, the egotistical fmotl and BNP candidate bottled it and failed to show up.

That's all you need to know about the man

[notorial dissent]

They definitely look a right pair, of what I'm not sure.

[He Who Knows]

You don't have to be Sigmund Freud (or even Mystic Meg) to know that this whole boxing malarkey is a cover-up for Morris's BIG FAIL at Manchester Magistrates Court earlier this week. The best defence he had was to ask the District Judge to step down for not giving his real name, and when he refused, Morris fled the court squealing "You're denying me the right to a fair trial".
Morris reckons "that shut the judge up" as he speaks to his sycophants on the journey back home to Essex. He brags about going for a "judicial review" and "appeal" and "pushing for Crown Court" because he's got a "legal loophole".
Deep down Morris must know this is all bullshit and is using smoke and mirrors to distract from his massive fail by having a virtual boxing match in his own head. Like everything he does it has no bearing on reality.
Maybe when the bailiffs come knocking on his door wanting the court fine (allegedly £1,004 and rising) he might step out of his parallel universe. That's if the police don't beat them to it by calling on him about his stalking and harassment of a FMotL Fails FB member.

[littleFred]

According to the Tameside Reporter, the fine was £400, plus £600 costs.

To me, Chrisy's own video proved his own guilt, and the prosecution didn't need their 50 pages or whatever of written evidence. But, if he does appeal, perhaps more evidence will come to light.

[JimUk1]

According to the Tameside Reporter, the fine was £400, plus £600 costs.

To me, Chrisy's own video proved his own guilt, and the prosecution didn't need their 50 pages or whatever of written evidence. But, if he does appeal, perhaps more evidence will come to light.

I love the bit were he said he was denied a fair trial under article 6 of the eu human rights act.

Chrisy, that notorious "leave" voter that is, won't be able to call on that soon Christopher.

Also he said he was dyslexic. Another blatant load of Bs. He seems to understand how to read a "fake" warrant, so that's another load of tosh.

All in all another unsuccessful day at the court for a notorious freeman.

Watch this space!

[longdog]

I love the bit were he said he was denied a fair trial under article 6 of the eu human rights act.

Chrisy, that notorious "leave" voter that is, won't be able to call on that soon Christopher.
!

To be pedantic The Human Rights Act comes from the European Convention on Human Rights which is from The Council of Europe not the EU.

[notorial dissent]

Trust those nasty old newspapers to go and accurately report something that happened and spoil poor old Chrisy's carefully drafted spin. So he thinks running out of court is going to change anything EXCEPT the judge finding against him in absentia. I think in the real world they call that cowardice, and in the boxing ring a loss. The boy is really a fine upstanding role model for young minds.