Work in court maybe?TheNewSaint wrote:my ride to bear arms under A61 of the magna Carta
Article 61. Is there anything it can't do?
![Snicker :snicker:](./images/smilies/icon_snicker.gif)
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
Work in court maybe?TheNewSaint wrote:my ride to bear arms under A61 of the magna Carta
Article 61. Is there anything it can't do?
She even says herself, in the same interminable Vicky Pollard-esque sentence, that she 'walked out' but she 'can't walk'so we walked out where someonne shouted you leave we will fine you in your absence, we are not staying now the judges have abandoned the ship and our advisor is being taken out so we left [...blah, blah...] but i get a warrant sent out, who came at the worse time a few hours after my dad had just passed away good job i didnt answer the door, i rang them and told them i did not receive a fine, im housebound i cant walk and not to hassle me....
Maybe we should keep a running tally of terms the FMOTLs seem to think have different meanings. Off the top of my head they seem to have special meanings for treason, joinder, common law and de jure.grixit wrote:As i've said before, it's an example of sov speak. Just as they like to insist that "includes" means "excludes", they also think that "vulnerable" means "invulnerable".
Quatloos should have Sov Cit/Freeman bingo, based on how many magical words is in one statement.aesmith wrote:Maybe we should keep a running tally of terms the FMOTLs seem to think have different meanings. Off the top of my head they seem to have special meanings for treason, joinder, common law and de jure.grixit wrote:As i've said before, it's an example of sov speak. Just as they like to insist that "includes" means "excludes", they also think that "vulnerable" means "invulnerable".
Word magic is such an integral part of the irrationality that the list would be very long. Reasonably well read and educated people are in effect vaccinated against it long before they encounter it because they tend to know and understand so many more words in the first place. They will have encountered many of the woo-words in their natural environment, bearing their generally accepted meanings, so that if someone makes it part of their pitch that 'down' is really just 'up' with different spelling, they are liable to reject it and any attached ideas as absurd on the face of it.aesmith wrote: Maybe we should keep a running tally of terms the FMOTLs seem to think have different meanings. Off the top of my head they seem to have special meanings for treason, joinder, common law and de jure.
"In honour" is a big one.aesmith wrote: Maybe we should keep a running tally of terms the FMOTLs seem to think have different meanings. Off the top of my head they seem to have special meanings for treason, joinder, common law and de jure.
I'm guessing the bailiffs turn up and take all your stuff, but hey, what do I know about the law?Pete Ponchorat Maddison
20 September at 13:24
I was just wondering, what's the next step from Notice #5 'NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON AND INTENT'
Of course, theres always a naysayer spoiling the party:Start celebrating
Oh well Pete, back to the drawing boardthe bailiffs have ignored my letter to stop and of vulnerability, they are still harrassing me.
I ask because the local mafia have sent me a summons for non-payment of CT and I've received letters from Bristow & Sutor (Who've been sent Notice #1). I've already gone through the process of Notices with the legal dep't, a named person who is Head of legal services, CEO, a CT team leader.
Did he actually put Marshall law?rumpelstilzchen wrote:In his latest video Colon claims because the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office when discussing complaints referred to "office holders" it proves that we are under Marshall law.
I've decided it's about time we made up our own legalese and to that end I suggest, with the able assistance of Google Translate, "Opus quod non fere" which translates as "It's almost as if it doesn't work"SteveUK wrote:Pete has dilligently followed the process to the end. Surely he's now safe from the bailiffs? Can anyone answer his question for him?
I'm guessing the bailiffs turn up and take all your stuff, but hey, what do I know about the law?Pete Ponchorat Maddison
20 September at 13:24
I was just wondering, what's the next step from Notice #5 'NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION OF TREASON AND INTENT'
However, despite the 100% failure record, some of our rebels seem to think this a joyous occasion.
Crabbie:Of course, theres always a naysayer spoiling the party:Start celebratingOh well Pete, back to the drawing boardthe bailiffs have ignored my letter to stop and of vulnerability, they are still harrassing me.I ask because the local mafia have sent me a summons for non-payment of CT and I've received letters from Bristow & Sutor (Who've been sent Notice #1). I've already gone through the process of Notices with the legal dep't, a named person who is Head of legal services, CEO, a CT team leader.
Presumably the fact we have opioid receptors clearly proves that the human body was meant to consume heroin.Michael Lukas Kaleb
The human body as CBD receptors, therefore it clearly proves that the human body was meant to consume cannabis.. I stand by cannabis been legalise throughout the world forever.
Magna Carta is eternal and unchangeable because reasons.The Seventh String wrote:I wonder if I might be allowed a couple of questions that’s perhaps answered somewhere already, but try as I might I can’t find an answer to it.
If our 21st century rebelling peasants and yeopersons only follow the common law, and statutes definitely don’t apply to them - why are they claiming to be following the several Great Charters when they weren’t common law but medieval statutes?
It never happened but there was something about some barons writing to the queen about something at some point and that seemed to be enough as long as the rebels sent their oath of allegiance to one of them. Unfortunately the response from those barons (or at least the ones still alive) was less than enthusiastic so it became just any old baron. That too failed to drum up any baronial support so the current modus operandi seems to be to sign the oath, get it witnessed and just forget about the barons entirely.And which 25 of today’s barons have been elected by the peerage of England to uphold the rights of the peerage against the Crown and how do our 21st century oath-swearing wannabe Watt Tyler’s get their orders from the 25?
That's pretty much the whole thing summed up in two short lines.Or are they just confusing reality with a role-playing game set in a fantasy medieval world, one where the Black Death, smallpox, lepresy and the gruesome public execution of rebels doesn’t take all the fun out of things?
The MC is "common law" 'cause they say it is. Among other things they are woefully lacking in knowledge of history, law, and reality in general. Common law is magik you see and eternal, or at least as long as it is convenient for them.The Seventh String wrote:I wonder if I might be allowed a couple of questions that’s perhaps answered somewhere already, but try as I might I can’t find an answer to it.
If our 21st century rebelling peasants and yeopersons only follow the common law, and statutes definitely don’t apply to them - why are they claiming to be following the several Great Charters when they weren’t common law but medieval statutes?
And which 25 of today’s barons have been elected by the peerage of England to uphold the rights of the peerage against the Crown and how do our 21st century oath-swearing wannabe Watt Tyler’s get their orders from the 25?
Or are they just confusing reality with a role-playing game set in a fantasy medieval world, one where the Black Death, smallpox, lepresy and the gruesome public execution of rebels doesn’t take all the fun out of things?
I suppose they could try arguing that the baron’s intention when sending the letter was immaterial. What counts is it was sent at all.Siegfried Shrink wrote: I wonder how PLD would react if a signatory baron came out and confirmed this?
grixit wrote:The very first order of the Common Law was "from now on, William of Normandy owns everything." Fortunately, it's an evolving entity.
Jeff Smudger Smith
Woop woop I got a reply ha ha..... Here we go now I've someone to get my teeth into
![]()