"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[Chaos]

Not even a BOLO

for Bones?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Whatever happened to Bones?

[Burnaby49]

He last signed on to Quatloos on March 8th, over six months ago. Then after 1,874 postings he just disappeared. Nothing in his postings to indicate why. You can read them here;

search.php?author_id=28607&sr=posts

[Chaos]

smart money is on him and Betty relaxing on a beach.

[The Observer]

smart money is on him and Betty relaxing on a beach.

Even smarter money would be placed on him being Betty.

[exiledscouser]

David Rowbotham's battle with The Man continues.

Our modern Don Quixote, having not bothered to turn up at a Magistrates hearing (to decide whether to invoke a default sentence arising from non-payment of a confiscation order) finds that the 'non court' have issued a 'non warrant' which will have some 'non cop' or similar arrest him and send him to a 'non jail'. He posts a copy of a letter from HMCTS advising him that a warrant has been issued (I won't reproduce it as it has his address in full), Rowbotham has previously posted that he expects to get sent down for 9 months, a 'pregnant pause' in his life.

This use of the prefix 'non' is all a bit French for me and is the Sov equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear whilst yelling over everyone around you. And every bit as ineffective. You don't get a confiscation order unless you commit some quite tasty crime or crimes yet David appears to think its all terribly unfair.

Dismal Dave (OTF Robinson variety) agrees;

They put out a no bail arrest warrant on me five years ago so I left the area and kept my head down for 18 months...eventually I got tired of evading them so I walked into Bath city police station with evidence of treason against five individuals....the policy enforcers wouldn't even look at the evidence but they wouldn't arest me either......I never was arrested and never complied with any of their demands however, they are now stealing monies from my entitlements each month to pay the fine they put on me in my absence....I put them on Notice and sent them the affidavit I drerw up and served on the so called court manager and legal advisor of Chippenham magistrates (not) court....still the theft continues....

I would add another Notice to stop to the quisling warrant officer and make it threatening....she is aiding and abetting high treason and she knows it. Maybe we should gather the troops and seize the bloody court?....these ignorant wankers need to be held accountable I'm sick of this BS.

Dismal won't pay the fines he's accrued but he's paying them anyway, like it or not, through benefit deductions which is why there was no need to arrest him. Well done the DWP I say - like the Borg, resistance is futile. Nonetheless he 'notices' away like a man possessed but has absolutely nothing to show for it except an ever-expanding pit of resentment and quite a bit less in his pocket each month than others in his situation.

I'd better refer to David Rowbotham as DR and the main Dave as DD (Dismal Dave) to distinguish between the competing Daves.

Anyway, DR is asked;

WTF is a Confiscation court?!?

to which DR responds;

When they know that you have an asset and you commit a so called criminal offence the passed an act so they can size your asset to cover their costs the thieving bastards

No DR, it is designed you strip you of your ill-gotten gains from whatever ("so called") criminality you managed to get yourself convicted of. I think it deals with a default sentence which gets imposed if you refuse to cough up. Serving it does not discharge the debt anyway. Resistance is after all futile - in these circumstances.

What could have led to this? He owes £20K for what appears to have been a substantial grow op. There also appears to have been a bit of a slanging match between the court and DR's authorised representative earlier this week which might well explain why the court have issued a warrant. Way to go, sending some gobby twat to get the bench well onside.

DD explains;

They want his house.....he served time for a cannabis charge when there is NO law against cannabis anyway....(he would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that pesky Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) ..I proved that a couple of years ago when the CPS backed off from attempting to prosecute Danielle Delioness ...she was growing hemp in protest and they decided to prosecute her for growing cannabis ...corrupt nastards....after putting them on notice of the fascts the CPS (traitors) claimed no further action would be taken due to lack of evidence....they had 30+ well established plants so where did the evidence go?

The CPS (Couldn't Prosecute Satan) have a track record of binning minor jobs and general incompetence so I wouldn't claim victory for PLD methods here DD.

Last word to DR who can see that this is all rather pointless;

20 k so I'll have to sell my he (probably means h/a - home address) to raise it

[AndyPandy]

If it's a POCA Order, his property will already have a restriction- that's put in place as an Ex Parte order as soon as you're arrested and only removed if they drop the charges or you pay off the eventual POCA Order.

As he's failed to co-operate I suspect once he's arrested the next thing will be a confiscatation order and they'll take possession to pay off the order, plus interest plus costs.

He's another one that'll end up with the best part of nothing, if he'd co-operated and put his house up for sale he might have walked away with something.

[mufc1959]

A call for action from David Robinson, in support of his mate David Rowbotham. At least there is a plan. And what could possibly go wrong for the members of PLD if they occupy a court with the intention of disrupting proceedings? Obviously all the judges will abandon ship, leaving them free to dismiss all the proceedings and dispense justice according to common law. That, or they'll all be arrested. Or only three of them will turn up, as the other 97 will be busy signing on. It's hard to say which is the more likely ...

[Siegfried Shrink]

He is right about one thing, they might as well give up now.

[King Lud]

He'll be there leading from the front, I assume? I mean he can't expect the other ranks to know what to do without his valued leadership. If he can muster up his bus fair of course. And some credit for his phone. And somewhere with free WiFi. His lifestyle is everything one can aspire to.

[Burnaby49]

Give him credit he's right about another thing too. Cannabis isn't illegal under common law. As I understand common law nothing is illegal under it because "illegal" inplies criminal actions which are the creation of legislated statutory law. Common law is civil.

[rumpelstilzchen]

genocide

Stupid boy.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I don't know about genocide but it does make me think about eugenics or even post-natal abortion.

[TheNewSaint]

I hereby set the over-under for attendees (not including Rowbotham) at 8. Taking all bets.

[Angolvagyok]

He last signed on to Quatloos on March 8th, over six months ago. Then after 1,874 postings he just disappeared. Nothing in his postings to indicate why. You can read them here;

search.php?author_id=28607&sr=posts

I'm sorry this is so off-topic, but whatever happened to Peanut Gallery?

[Burnaby49]

He last signed on to Quatloos on March 8th, over six months ago. Then after 1,874 postings he just disappeared. Nothing in his postings to indicate why. You can read them here;

search.php?author_id=28607&sr=posts

I'm sorry this is so off-topic, but whatever happened to Peanut Gallery?

Same story as Bones. He joined June 19,2014 and made 1,581 posts, last one on January 21, 2017 on the Rekha Patel discussion, then stopped without a word of goodbye. He was last on Quatloos March 13, 2017.

[Dr. Caligari]

Give him credit he's right about another thing too. Cannabis isn't illegal under common law. As I understand common law nothing is illegal under it because "illegal" inplies criminal actions which are the creation of legislated statutory law. Common law is civil.

Not so. I recall learning in a law school legal history class that there were ten common law felonies: murder, manslaughter, rape, sodomy, mayhem, grand larceny, robbery, burglary, arson and jailbreak. Granted, my law school years were decades ago, and I may be mis-remembering the list, but I'm quite sure I learned that there were common law felonies. (I even remember the elements of some of them-- burglary was (1) breaking and (2) entering a (3) dwelling-house (4) in the nighttime (5) with the intent to commit larceny.)

[Burnaby49]

Most of that list is easily found in the Criminal Code of Canada;

Murder

Homicide
222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

Marginal note:Culpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.

(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;

(b) by criminal negligence;

(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Seems odd that they have frightening children to death in there.

Rape

265 (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Sodomy

Anal intercourse

159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or

(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,

both of whom consent to the act.

Arson

Arson — disregard for human life
433 Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where

(a) the person knows that or is reckless with respect to whether the property is inhabited or occupied; or

(b) the fire or explosion causes bodily harm to another person.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 433;1990, c. 15, s. 1.
434 Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

Manslaughter

Manslaughter
234 Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 217.

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Mayhem
Not, I believe, a specific offense in Canada.

Robbery

Robbery
343 Every one commits robbery who

(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;

(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;

(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or

(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.

And I'm sure the rest are in there but I got tired of looking. I can't speak to American law but I'm not aware of any Canadian criminal offenses that are common law offenses rather than statutory offenses in the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Burnaby49]

As I previously said I'm not overly familiar with Statutory v common law issues, particularly as they pertain to criminal offenses. However I said that it is my understanding, at least in Canada, that all criminal offenses are now under statutory law rather than common law. The pertinent statute in Canada being the Criminal Code. So, when I was questioned on this viewpoint and realized that I was over my head I asked someone who actually knows the answer, a practicing Canadian criminal lawyer.

This is the question I put to my friend (while I'm not a lawyer I'll follow the custom of Canadian lawyers who call the opposing counsel "my friend" in court.);

We're having a bit of a debate about whether criminal offenses are statutory or common law. At least, are some offenses common law? I say no. Am I right or are there common law criminal offenses?

My learned friend's reply was;

Common law criminal offences: initially all criminal offences in the English tradition were common law. However, in every Commonwealth country I'm aware of Parliament decided to codify criminal law into legislation, which of course in Canada is our Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

That extinguishes common law criminal offences. If you have a look at section 9 that is made explicit:

9 Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730
(a) of an offence at common law,
...

but nothing in this section affects the power, jurisdiction or authority that a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge had, immediately before April 1, 1955, to impose punishment for contempt of court.

So section 9 extinguishes all common law offences except for contempt of court, which remains a non-codified common law offence.

Interestingly, Parliament did however codify the maximum possible penalty for contempt of court which proceeds in a summary manner:

708(2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court judge may deal summarily with a person who is guilty of contempt of court under this section and that person is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety days or to both, and may be ordered to pay the costs that are incident to the service of any process under this Part and to his detention, if any.

However, if the Crown charges someone with criminal contempt of court, and they are found guilty, they can in theory receive any sentence, since none is specified in the Criminal Code. Case law has established some limits on that, naturally.

[JimUk1]

Lol.

Davids been drinking the Old Spice again I presume.

He should ask Roger Hayes for advice! Or maybe I can when I have to go visit the partners parents, whom happen to be from Birkenhead, and have never heard of Roger the dodger (or his groundbreaking escapades in said towns court!) so it's a guaranteed why to raise your profile! Not!

PLD is certainly entering into obscurity, many people are seeing it for what it is, and how much does Dave expect these people to spend on postage? All those "notices" it must cost a substantial amount sending recorded mail!

I think we are about to see the second member jailed in less then 4 months!

Keep up the great work Dave!