"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[aesmith]

Meanwhile our ban fodder Mark has had a stay of execution, meaning the court will now have five more days to ponder his latest notice. Or to ignore it until the hearing, when it will be set aside as irrelevant.

Jolyon Jenkins
Hey Mark - I looked back at your original summons papers and the court hearing isn't tomorrow, it's on the 7th, unless it's been brought forward. So you have an extra week to sort things out.

Mark Abbott
Thank you what a wolly, I was bricking it a bit, that's a sigh of relief, it's ready to post today. So will make it in time, and going to Glasgow today to see what the common law court is all about.

Jolyon Jenkins
No problem! Easy mistake to make

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

This just in; more BS from Dave.

They have lots of evidence against Tony Blair now, and want him up in thier pretend court.

Not that it would be a fair trial, since Dave has already declared him guilty before the jury have even decided!

[Siegfried Shrink]

who would deny a large assembly of the people demanding such a court hearing, when it would be against the constitution therefore treason to deny it?

Since no-one is taking a blind bit of notice of accusations of treason now, probably just about everyone. He's like Neelu and her liens in this regard.

I really cannot see many survivors left standing when the Great Day comes. (As it surely will.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U016JWYUDdQ

[noblepa]

who would deny a large assembly of the people demanding such a court hearing, when it would be against the constitution therefore treason to deny it?

Since no-one is taking a blind bit of notice of accusations of treason now, probably just about everyone. He's like Neelu and her liens in this regard.

I really cannot see many survivors left standing when the Great Day comes. (As it surely will.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U016JWYUDdQ

In the US, our freemen throw around accusations of treason a lot, just as the UK freemen do. Just like freemen everywhere, their definition of treason seems to be "anything I don't like".

In the US, treason is actually defined in the Constitution itself, as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

What is the actual legal definition of treason in the UK?

[JimUk1]

High treason can only be committed against the Crown (example; plotting to murder the monarch).

Which makes David assertion even more ridiculous, as he himself is almost complicate in that act.

[Siegfried Shrink]

There must, then, be a low treason, William Joyce was hanged for assisting the enemy, in much the same offense that the US constitution defines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw- ... _aftermath

This was possibly the last actual treason charge to be prosecuted in a British court. Spies and suchlike caught more recently tend to be charged under other headings like the Official Secrets Act. This may have something to do with the lack of an actual war.

[SteveUK]

Another idiot who sees 'wins' where there are only losses.
The court responded with 'the matter is closed , we can't this any farther' in reply to his notices.

[Siegfried Shrink]

That seems an unusually realistic reply.

[SteveUK]

That seems an unusually realistic reply.

Maybe he's ran out of weed money as well as phone credit

[Dr. Caligari]

In the US, treason is actually defined in the Constitution itself, as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

What is the actual legal definition of treason in the UK?

If I'm remembering correctly from a legal history course I took in law school 35+ years ago, the U.S. Constitution's definition of treason was borrowed from the British definition, except that we eliminated one of the British definitions: "compassing the death of the King."

[SteveUK]

Treason is alive and well.
Scroll to the bottom
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _still_exi

[noblepa]

In the US, treason is actually defined in the Constitution itself, as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

What is the actual legal definition of treason in the UK?

If I'm remembering correctly from a legal history course I took in law school 35+ years ago, the U.S. Constitution's definition of treason was borrowed from the British definition, except that we eliminated one of the British definitions: "compassing the death of the King."

Actually, I remember being taught that the US definition was codified in the Constitution in order to avoid the European custom of accusing one's political enemies of treason for the flimsiest of reasons.

[Pottapaug1938]

It's almost impossible to be convicted of treason, in the US. You either have to be "levying war" -- that's a shooting war, folks -- against the US or any of its parts (even, say, Guam); or you have to be adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. That doesn't mean that someone who is in the US and, say, posts a pro-Daesh or pro-Al-Qaeda rant online, can be convicted of treason; only if that person takes some action to actually join one of those organizations, or to a front organization which is known, to the adherer, to be connected with such an organization, can a charge of treason be sustained.

None of the Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union -- not even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg -- were convicted of treason.

[notorial dissent]

Treason is alive and well.
Scroll to the bottom
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _still_exi

But doesn't mean at all what they seem to want to make it mean.

[Dr. Caligari]

None of the Americans convicted of spying for the Soviet Union -- not even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg -- were convicted of treason.

The current understanding in the U.S. (though it's never been tested in court) is that there has to be a declared war in order for someone to be convicted of treason for "adhering to its enemies". If I'm not mistaken, the last treason prosecutions in the U.S. were of "Tokyo Rose" and other American citizens who collaborated with the Japanese during WWII. The Rosenbergs, as noted, were convicted of espionage, not treason, but were nonetheless executed.

[notorial dissent]

I would think treason would be relatively hard to prove given the bars set for it, whereas espionage would be a great deal easier.

[longdog]

I think this is an appropriate time for me to remind my fellow Quatloosians of PAYG Robinson's very wise words...

NEW MEMBERS PLEASE READ THIS.

Firstly please keep posts ON TOPIC as we do not wish to focus on the problems as much as the solution. Thank you.

Can we all then please try to concentrate on the many occasional non-existent victories such as... Errr... Ummm... I'll get back to you

[JimUk1]

There must, then, be a low treason, William Joyce was hanged for assisting the enemy, in much the same offense that the US constitution defines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Haw- ... _aftermath

This was possibly the last actual treason charge to be prosecuted in a British court. Spies and suchlike caught more recently tend to be charged under other headings like the Official Secrets Act. This may have something to do with the lack of an actual war.

I believe it all boils down to the fact spying is a threat to the crown. Spying on on the armed forces, I think it's a direct threat to the monarch since she is the commander and chief.

But don't quote me on that!

Having signed the official secrets act it's all it's mostly ridiculous anyway. You can find out more about the aircarft I work on, on the RAF website then I actually know, and you can come any airshow and photograph the damn things.

[SteveUK]

Treason is alive and well.
Scroll to the bottom
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _still_exi

But doesn't mean at all what they seem to want to make it mean.

Well obviously . That's because they're totally MAD

[notorial dissent]

Treason is alive and well.
Scroll to the bottom
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _still_exi

But doesn't mean at all what they seem to want to make it mean.

Well obviously . That's because they're totally MAD

I'd have just settled for bone ignorant pillocks who've got no more understanding or knowledge of their history than my cat, who is by the way considerably smarter and decidedly prettie and much better company. With them, ignorance isn't a fact, it's a life style.