"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[SteveUK]

my ride to bear arms under A61 of the magna Carta

Article 61. Is there anything it can't do?

Work in court maybe?

[He Who Knows]

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....

She even says herself, in the same interminable Vicky Pollard-esque sentence, that she 'walked out' but she 'can't walk'

[aesmith]

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".

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.

[JimUk1]

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".

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.

Quatloos should have Sov Cit/Freeman bingo, based on how many magical words is in one statement.

[Siegfried Shrink]

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.

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.
If you have a tabloid newspaper vocabulary the pratings of such as Jordan Maxwell are more likely to make, if not sense, an impression that you are being taught something.
Quantum grammar is a step too far for almost anyone, but there is a certain glib persuasiveness about many fanciful definitions presented for words that are new, or have been heard but not understood.
The desire to be let into secrets has a powerful effect in encouraging credulity. Many court or legal terms are not encountered every day so it is relatively easy to suggest to the suggestable that they are not just little used terms in everyday life but some secret language employed to confuse. They may even be accustomed to jargon in their own occupation. A builder would be hard to convince that soffits and purlins were words of power, a plumber would be happy with a gully, trap and wiped joint, but it seems many do not export the idea of a special set of words for special circumstances to the processes of law.

The lack of any effective counter-education at the time of infection is akin to no medical treatment till the diseased parts go black and start dropping off.

Lets hope Crosby's Merchant's and Tradesman's Pocket Dictionary does not take the place of the ubiquitus 'Black's Law' as a magic spell book, it is well out of date and full of wierd stuff enough to fuel some new madness.

[TheNewSaint]

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.

[rumpelstilzchen]

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. He does this by claiming the word "officer" is a military term therefore we have a system of military law. He then adds that this shows the government is at war....with us.
His followers will lap this up. But then you have to remember Colon and his followers will never bother to open a dictionary and check the definition of "officer". But what else would you expect from a bunch of thickos?

[SteveUK]

Pete has dilligently followed the process to the end. Surely he's now safe from the bailiffs? Can anyone answer his question for him?

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'

I'm guessing the bailiffs turn up and take all your stuff, but hey, what do I know about the law?

However, despite the 100% failure record, some of our rebels seem to think this a joyous occasion.

Crabbie:

Start celebrating

Of course, theres always a naysayer spoiling the party:

the bailiffs have ignored my letter to stop and of vulnerability, they are still harrassing me.

Oh well Pete, back to the drawing board

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.

[Siegfried Shrink]

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.

Did he actually put Marshall law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Or does he think US Marshal Raylan Givens will patrol the mean streets of Nottingham?

Or could it be martial law? Makes a change from Admiralty law anyway.

[aesmith]

Martian Law?

[longdog]

Pete has dilligently followed the process to the end. Surely he's now safe from the bailiffs? Can anyone answer his question for him?

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'

I'm guessing the bailiffs turn up and take all your stuff, but hey, what do I know about the law?

However, despite the 100% failure record, some of our rebels seem to think this a joyous occasion.

Crabbie:

Start celebrating

Of course, theres always a naysayer spoiling the party:

the bailiffs have ignored my letter to stop and of vulnerability, they are still harrassing me.

Oh well Pete, back to the drawing board

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.

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"

[The Seventh String]

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?

[longdog]

I've long been of the opinion that cannabis should be legalised but I'm also of the opinion that excessive consumption leads certain people to believe all manner of idiotic conspiracy theories including the various flavours of Footlerism.

Here we see biopharmacology expert Michael at work...

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.

Presumably the fact we have opioid receptors clearly proves that the human body was meant to consume heroin.

[longdog]

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?

Magna Carta is eternal and unchangeable because reasons.

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?

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.

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?

That's pretty much the whole thing summed up in two short lines.

[Siegfried Shrink]

The trouble with lacking a workable sense of humour is that all fail to realise the letter from the barons was in fact a joke dreamed up in the House of Lords bar one rainy evening.

Having some small aquaintance with the more esoteric forms of humour beloved of the British upper classes, it is either unbelievably childish, or dead pan serious nonsense leading to the vast amusement of the perpetrators and doubles all round.

I wonder how PLD would react if a signatory baron came out and confirmed this?

In the world of the odd, probably with assertions that the said baron was either coerced by the PTB or a substitute reptilian shape shifter.

[notorial dissent]

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?

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]

I wonder how PLD would react if a signatory baron came out and confirmed this?

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.

Therefore the Barons are legally in rebellion against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II whether they intended to be or not. And, just like a contract, to be valid an oath doesn’t have to be agreed to by both parties involved, oath taker and oath receiver, but holds both parties for ever unless the Baron rebuts the oath in their own blue blood within two minutes of it being made.

I guess it’s lucky for the barons that beheading the nobility for high treason against the Crown went out of fashion some time ago. Aslo that fmotlism is nonsense. A country that ran along the lines they imagine this one does would not be a very pleasant place to be.

[grixit]

The very first order of the Common Law was "from now on, William of Normandy owns everything." Fortunately, it's an evolving entity.

[Gregg]

The very first order of the Common Law was "from now on, William of Normandy owns everything." Fortunately, it's an evolving entity.

I think it was pretty much that, and "what the king says is law, is law" until Henry II started a few other things along.

[longdog]

Another outstanding victory!!!!!111!!!

Jeff Smudger Smith

Woop woop I got a reply ha ha..... Here we go now I've someone to get my teeth into