littleFred wrote:On Robert White's thread, commenting on Swale Council's comments on the MC:
It's the fact that she doesn't think the Catholic Church is a Christian Church that gets me
To be fair, that misunderstanding was caused by the letter from Swale Council (in all other respects it was an excellent rebuttal of the Lorfle Rebylion piffle). Specifically, Chapter 1 MC1215 guarantees "... that the English Church shall be free...", which is not quite the same thing as ".. the freedom of the Church of England...".
(For the benefit of overseas members who care little for English history, the establishment of "The Church of England" as a separate body defying Papal authority occurred 3 centuries after the various Magna Cartas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... of_England))
While I'm being pedantic, the key judgement described as "City of London v Samede & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 160" is more fully titled "The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul's Churchyard Camp Representative) & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 160". The judicial slam-down occurs in para 30 :
First, he challenged the judgment on the ground that it did not apply to him, as a 'Magna Carta heir'. But that is a concept unknown to the law. He also says that his 'Magna Carta rights' would be breached by execution of the orders. But only chapters 1, 9 and 29 of Magna Carta (1297 version) survive. Chapter 29, with its requirement that the state proceeds according to the law, and its prohibition on the selling or delaying of justice, is seen by many as the historical foundation for the rule of law in England, but it has no bearing on the arguments in this case. Somewhat ironically, the other two chapters concern the rights of the Church and the City of London, and cannot help the defendants. Mr Randle-Jolliffe also invokes 'constitutional and superior law issues' which, he alleges, prevail over statutory, common law, and human rights law. Again that is simply wrong – at least in a court of law.
The Swale Council letter was about the three clauses that still have legal effect. I cited and quoted the text: it says "Church of England", not "English Church".
Latin didn't use the word "of" so the original phrase was "Anglicana ecclesia". Of course, that can be translated as "Church of England" or "English Church".
Based on the language, and more importantly the time, it would translate to "English Church" as that was the usage of the time, justas they would have spoken of the French or German church(s) using the correct national descriptor. Modernly yes it would come out as "Church of England" if you were doing a loose translation. I prefer to stick as close to the usage they used to avoid the bear traps of translating something when you are not really familiar with the context as well as the word meaning. The critical point, is that the 1215 meaning of "Anglicana ecclesia" means something far different from what a loose translation in to modern English would.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
aesmith wrote:I wonder how they square this with the idea that the Magna Carta is all powerful ever enduring ..
Silva Lloyd
There's only one part of mc1215 I don't like, the part that protects the city of London. I don't consent to that.
I'm equally certain the City of London doesn't care.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Technically speaking they're not totally illiterate but a large percentage have very poor English language skills and I suspect a generally poor standard of education. Stupidity and in many cases an excessive consumption of marijuana don't help either.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
That in a Tribunal held in Doncaster on 22 January 2016, You held, you crossed the line, so to speak and you held a pure vile and evil kangaroo court against me and disabled people
That in a Tribunal held in Doncaster on 22 January 2016, You held, you crossed the line, so to speak and you held a pure vile and evil kangaroo court against me and disabled people
I hope the judge sues him for libel... He won't of course because he's obviously a crank and judges probably have very thick skin when it comes to idiots unhappy that their hopeless case was thrown out.
I assume this is all related to his obviously doomed attempt to get the DWP to pay him child benefit for a child that's not his, is not related to him in any way, is not a UK or even EU citizen, has never lived in the UK and has no connection to him beyond being the daughter of his Ukrainian <air-quotes> girlfriend </air-quotes> who has been refused a UK entry visa.
Strangely enough from looking at his Facebook timeline he's rabidly anti-immigration... Well... Anti-Muslim immigration anyway.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
More from the legal genius that is Creepy Spencer...
Tony Coles
so was the claim struck out because of the notice?
Charles Spencer
No, he claiming whatever this CPR3.4(a) and (b) then part 24.4(a)91). whatever they all mean or intended to be. I have no knowledge at all about this, and should not no need to as well.
He doesn't know what CPR 3.4(a), 3.4(b) and 23.1(a) (not 24,4(a) as he mistakenly claims) are... That would be 'no reasonable grounds for claim', 'abuse of process' and 'powers to issue a summary judgement' respectively if 30 seconds on Google is to be believed. I don't know which is worst... The fact that he may genuinely not have looked up the CPR rules in question or the fact he expects us to believe he's not looked them up.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
One million Re prize to anybody who knows what the fuck Barry Mung is going on about.
Barry Mung
So, through a 'fake' court in Northampton, it seems like the likes of ArrowGB and others are using this court to change unsecured debt into secure.
They get a CCJ and your tax code is altered so even your employer doesn't know. You just get paid one month and can't pay the rent...
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
longdog wrote:One million Re prize to anybody who knows what the fuck Barry Mung is going on about.
Barry Mung
So, through a 'fake' court in Northampton, it seems like the likes of ArrowGB and others are using this court to change unsecured debt into secure.
They get a CCJ and your tax code is altered so even your employer doesn't know. You just get paid one month and can't pay the rent...
Is he saying he got an attachement of earnings?
Meanwhile, in delusionland, their now claiming they're not freemen on the land-
What was is we said about these idiots and the Weatherspoons again?
