Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[notorial dissent]

Question, do the UK constabulary take a dim view of fake cops as their US cousins?

[Siegfried Shrink]

No, they do not want to wreck the entire strippagram industrry.

More seriously, the presence of a badge is pretty useless, British police ID is a warrent card, name rank number, photo and official badgelike logo. I think most people would be unimpressed. Even if they have no criminal experience they have seen enough police on TV flashing their warrent cards as a routine introduction.

[Dr. Caligari]

In the UK, impersonating a police officer constitutes a criminal offence under S90 of the 1996 Police Act. A fine or a prison sentence of up to 6 months are the penalties on conviction.

Not that this is likely to bother Darren.

What about the offence of impersonating a pizza?

[longdog]

Unless my Google-Foo is broken that badge doesn't bare much of a resemblance to a genuine D&C Police badge and judging by it's odd shape I'd say it was obtained from a custom belt buckle manufacturer... Of which there are plenty listed on Google.

If nothing else the fact that it says both 'Constabulary' and 'Police' is highly suspicious to say the least. Some police forces in the UK call themselves the 'XXXXXX Constabulary' but these days most call themselves just 'XXXXXX Police'. The chances of both 'Police' and 'Constabulary' appearing on the same badge are, in my guess, something south of fuck all.

[Burnaby49]

Badges very ranked high in Robert Menard's mythology that we could all, by doing certain magical steps, make ourselves police officers. Menard required that his followers get very professional looking badges. A group of them tried it here in Vancouver and ended up with criminal convictions. I attended their trials and wrote about it here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9388

They had their badges made up at BC Stamp Works, the same place that Chief Rock and the other fake notaries had their notorial seals made up.

http://www.bcstamp.com/

At the request of the RCMP BC Stamp now requires that customers prove that they are real notaries before making them seals and no longer make fake police badges. I believe that they make the real badges for the Vancouver Police Department.

[JimUk1]

In the UK, impersonating a police officer constitutes a criminal offence under S90 of the 1996 Police Act. A fine or a prison sentence of up to 6 months are the penalties on conviction.

Not that this is likely to bother Darren.

What about the offence of impersonating a pizza?

You’d have to ask Papa John, or Pizza the Hutt.

[SteveUK]

What an amazing win for rebel R Picktall!!!1!!!

£250,000 in costs followed by another £5k and 3 months free BnB.

Edit - typo

CONVENING A COURT -

I have registered my birth certificate and reclaimed my name now I wish to convene a Common Court.

In 2015 my local authority Cheshire West and Chester Council convinced the High Court of England and Wales I did in 2011 write and send over 1200 emails to its Solutions team many of which it said were malicious, abusive and derogatory; the Council also convinced the Court in the same year I created a website and not only used it to attack the doctors, nurses and facilities at my local hospital but also used it to promote my campaign of harassment against its staff and councillors - at no time did the Council disclose any of that evidence and despite my telling the court that evidence never existed, telling the it was manufactured. I made several different applications for specific disclosure of that withheld evidence and incredibly both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed I cannot have it. The High Court awarded the Council full costs estimated to be in excess of £250.000.00, I say estimated because oddly the Council continues to this day refusing to submit those costs to either the court or to myself !

In July 2016 having won its High Court injunction by way of dishonesty the Council successfully sought my imprisonment for having breached its injunction - Mr Justice Soole sentenced me to 3 months in HMP Manchester and £5,000 costs which again the Council declines to reclaim.

I complained to the Information Commissioner in 2016 reporting the Council for refusing to provide me that which I knew it couldn't the "over 1200 emails; I told the Commissioner I required the documents to prove my innocence and in late February 2017 the Commissioner found in my favour confirming the Council in breach of section 7 Data protection Act 1998, but she refused to prosecute the Council and therefore I made application to the High Court to sue the Council for breach of Data Protection Act and astonishingly Mr Justice Pelling QC threw me saying my application was "totally without merit" and ruled I may never own those emails.

On 14 December 2017 the Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust at long last issued a written statement confirming my alleged attack on its hospital in 2011 never took place and by doing so enabling me to prove my local authority lied, manufactured evidence and willfully misled and the High Court and Court of appeal - I no longer wish to deal with the High Court nor the Court of appeal as I no longer believe they are Courts who administer justice - instead I now turn to the Common Court to deliver me Justice.

By convening a Common Court I aim is to prove to my Community most of all and of course to the rest of the Nation I am innocent of all I am accused and I want to expose my local authority and its 75 councillors for what they truly are - inherently dishonest and not fir for purpose. I live in Cheshire and wondered if there is anyone within my area who would be kind enough to meet and advise me how to convene a Common Court ?

Robert A Pickthall

[Aegis]

What an amazing win for rebel R Picktall!!!1!!!

£250,000 in costs followed by another £5k and 3 months free BnB.

Edit - typo

CONVENING A COURT -

I have registered my birth certificate and reclaimed my name now I wish to convene a Common Court.

In 2015 my local authority Cheshire West and Chester Council convinced the High Court of England and Wales I did in 2011 write and send over 1200 emails to its Solutions team many of which it said were malicious, abusive and derogatory; the Council also convinced the Court in the same year I created a website and not only used it to attack the doctors, nurses and facilities at my local hospital but also used it to promote my campaign of harassment against its staff and councillors - at no time did the Council disclose any of that evidence and despite my telling the court that evidence never existed, telling the it was manufactured. I made several different applications for specific disclosure of that withheld evidence and incredibly both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed I cannot have it. The High Court awarded the Council full costs estimated to be in excess of £250.000.00, I say estimated because oddly the Council continues to this day refusing to submit those costs to either the court or to myself !

In July 2016 having won its High Court injunction by way of dishonesty the Council successfully sought my imprisonment for having breached its injunction - Mr Justice Soole sentenced me to 3 months in HMP Manchester and £5,000 costs which again the Council declines to reclaim.

I complained to the Information Commissioner in 2016 reporting the Council for refusing to provide me that which I knew it couldn't the "over 1200 emails; I told the Commissioner I required the documents to prove my innocence and in late February 2017 the Commissioner found in my favour confirming the Council in breach of section 7 Data protection Act 1998, but she refused to prosecute the Council and therefore I made application to the High Court to sue the Council for breach of Data Protection Act and astonishingly Mr Justice Pelling QC threw me saying my application was "totally without merit" and ruled I may never own those emails.

On 14 December 2017 the Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust at long last issued a written statement confirming my alleged attack on its hospital in 2011 never took place and by doing so enabling me to prove my local authority lied, manufactured evidence and willfully misled and the High Court and Court of appeal - I no longer wish to deal with the High Court nor the Court of appeal as I no longer believe they are Courts who administer justice - instead I now turn to the Common Court to deliver me Justice.

By convening a Common Court I aim is to prove to my Community most of all and of course to the rest of the Nation I am innocent of all I am accused and I want to expose my local authority and its 75 councillors for what they truly are - inherently dishonest and not fir for purpose. I live in Cheshire and wondered if there is anyone within my area who would be kind enough to meet and advise me how to convene a Common Court ?

Robert A Pickthall

First post, but thought the original court ruling might be helpful:

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... final1.pdf

No idea who 5rb are, but the decision document certainly looks legitimate.

[hucknallred]

This will be him, not read it yet.
https://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news ... t-11641708

[rogfulton]

First post, but thought the original court ruling might be helpful:

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... final1.pdf

No idea who 5rb are, but the decision document certainly looks legitimate.

5rb apparently are barristers and lawyers who are

Defamation, privacy, confidence, intellectual property, data protection, harassment, and sport law specialists

[hucknallred]

His WhatDoTheyKnow requests https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/robert_pickthall

and if you can be bothered, his closed website has some archived stuff

https://web.archive.org/web/20160801000 ... nd.org.uk/

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'm confused.....

In 2015 my local authority Cheshire West and Chester Council convinced the High Court of England and Wales I did in 2011 write and send over 1200 emails to its Solutions team many of which it said were malicious, abusive and derogatory; the Council also convinced the Court in the same year I created a website and not only used it to attack the doctors, nurses and facilities at my local hospital but also used it to promote my campaign of harassment against its staff and councillors - at no time did the Council disclose any of that evidence and despite my telling the court that evidence never existed, telling the it was manufactured. I made several different applications for specific disclosure of that withheld evidence and incredibly both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed I cannot have it.

So you say the evidence doesn't exit but you expect the council or the courts to produce it?

The High Court awarded the Council full costs estimated to be in excess of £250.000.00, I say estimated because oddly the Council continues to this day refusing to submit those costs to either the court or to myself !

It doesn't need to. Costs are decided by the judge. It would be odd for a judge not to ask about a sides costs but he had no obligation to use an exact figure or wait for one to be produced. IMHO one of the things judges do in these circumstances is make sure costs aren't excessive or being "padded".

In July 2016 having won its High Court injunction by way of dishonesty the Council successfully sought my imprisonment for having breached its injunction - Mr Justice Soole sentenced me to 3 months in HMP Manchester and £5,000 costs which again the Council declines to reclaim.

Done it again, court decides costs not the party.

I complained to the Information Commissioner in 2016 reporting the Council for refusing to provide me that which I knew it couldn't the "over 1200 emails; I told the Commissioner I required the documents to prove my innocence

So you are going to prove your innocence by asking for 1200 emails that don't exist.

....Mr Justice Pelling QC threw me saying my application was "totally without merit" and ruled I may never own those emails.

That would be the emails that don't exist?

On 14 December 2017 the Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust at long last issued a written statement confirming my alleged attack on its hospital in 2011 never took place and by doing so enabling me to prove my local authority lied, manufactured evidence and willfully misled and the High Court and Court of appeal - I no longer wish to deal with the High Court nor the Court of appeal as I no longer believe they are Courts who administer justice - instead I now turn to the Common Court to deliver me Justice.

What? So you now have "proof" but you aren't going to court this time.

[SteveUK]

I'm confused.....

What? So you now have "proof" but you aren't going to court this time.

But he IS going to court. Okay, so its a fake one ran by a scottish crackpot. But the CLC promises swift justice for the otherwise totally guilty. The gubermint will be quaking in their shoes when that judgement is issued!

[Burnaby49]

Yawn . . . . Huh! What? Where? Sorry, must have nodded off for just a moment. It's 12:30 and I have to be up at 5:30 but I wasn't sleepy. However the thought of reading yet another batch of common law court decisions based on a blizzard of futile unilateral contracts almost put me under right at the keyboard. Better get to bed while I can still make it. Thanks for the help.

[Arthur Rubin]

It looks to me that the 1200 E-mails exist (but were roundfiled); it was the "legitimate" bills from the Council that didn't exist. ("Legitimate" is in sovereign-talk, meaning wet-ink signatures with a Baron's seal, etc.)

[exiledscouser]

Dreary Dave does like his grand pronouncements. The year 1911 is another pivotal moment in his historical perspective.

All Acts and Statutes passed into British law since the criminal 1911 Parliament Act was granted Royal assent by the traitor King George V, which were thus created whilst treason had been committed by the passing of said Act are unlawful. Even if they comply with our ancient and wise constitution they were not legally granted.

A poster isn't quite sure if that's right, or that, if it is, will benefits be paid?

Primula Smith
Hi David... Perhaps I'm a bit thick or not understan ding you peoperly but if all laws passed after 1911 werent legally granted then doesn't that mean state pensions, the NHS and state benfits are illegal too? I hope not LOL

Dreary's reply;

No but its a interesting question and not an easy one to answer....

No shit Dave. He continues;

The services that you mention were paid for by taxation and taxation went up considerable because of the welfare state being introduced.....those who applied all that legislation were indeed aiding and abetting a treasonable regime but not necessarily aware of that fact....this has since become more obvious and proven by Britains illegal entery into the EU.

So....taxes went up because of the welfare state. Yet he and his followers would urge everyone NOT to pay taxes of any sort, all the while treasonously taking advantage of free health care and a raft of state benefits etc. People like Primula above would find themselves in difficulties.

But Dave isn't through yet;

We need to remember that the governments have never owned anything it ALL belongs to the people who paid for it all and that is still the case....since taxation went up loads after the second world war to pay for the pubic services which we are supposed to be enjoying, and only paying for the maintenance of, they are legitimate even though the governments are not.

So the government isn't legitimate, neither are any of the laws passed since 1911, something something IS legitimate (wot Dave - taxes, laws allowing them, wot!!?) but Governments are not. Well that's cleared it up for me.

Despite his repeated denials Dave is still really just an old unreconstructed Freeman On the Land, giving himself away time and again. A Footle premise is that all goods, services, utilities, why EVERYTHING has already 'been paid for' (by whom isn't clear) and therefore we shouldn't have to pay for them. Dave again;

Now that we don't have free (already paid for) water, transport, judicial and educational services etc the entire system is now unlawful....the and the rip off is only getting worse.....since we have had traitors within the system for so long even the things that are supposed to be free (already paid for) were never free...like public transport...at least I don't think busses and trains have ever been a free (aleady paid for) service?

The logic is twisted more than a twisty thing on a twisty piece of toast.

Pensions etc were also paid for by National insurance contributions

Not by you Davey boy, you've never contributed anything in your whole miserable existence.

More Footle traits;

and we should not require extra insurances to cover things like cars etc

Again, something he tried - and failed at - when he lived in a van and discovered that actually, you do have to pay for insurance.

Dave isn't the only FMOTL now sailing under the PLD pennant. Take Charles Marston, fearlessly firing out affidavits which he calls a "NOTICE OF LAWFUL OBJECTION" (all caps note - this is always significant to these obsessives) but in 2010 might have been called a "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights", the rather unwieldy NOUICOR.

Charles drones on in his missive to his MP but rather than produce it all I'll just pull out some phrases, enough to allow anyone to create a Footle Bingo card;

the person doing business as
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
This is a lawful notice.
Please read it carefully
It informs you.
It means what it says
I do not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’
If you fail to comply with this Notice then you will be deemed to be in absolute agreement with the points raised.
So Do not ignore it.
A reply to this notice is required

What must it say?

is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name, sworn or attested in affidavit format and on his or her full commercial liability and Penalty of perjury.

But of course it should. Straight lifts so far from the Footle playbook. No wonder Barnaby is driven under the keyboard, seemingly caught in a Canadian Groundhog Day. I wonder if anyone, anywhere has ever been crazy enough to respond in such terms. Continues....

Parliamentary Privilege in Civil Matters (Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770) may be challengeable in a Common Law Court De-Jure at which attendance may be necessary

Nigel Mills MP, a trip up to Scotland and "Hanging Judge" Crabby for you matey.

Your response is required within Fourteen (14) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to comply will signify your tacit agreement with the facts of this Notice.

Never seen that phrase before...second foisted agreement. Next;

a man and living being standing under Oath to the Committee of Barons 2001 not standing as, or representing a Legal Fiction

Is that the follow-on movie that Tarrantino never made?

obliged to stand in defiance of the treasonous RULES

If there is no reply in ‘substance’ to this ‘Notice Of Lawful Objection’ then it shall be taken to mean that you (nor any other interested parties) have no objections whatsoever to my lawful standing

Three, that's a prile of foisted unilateral agreement so far...

There are a long and very boring series "question and answered" paragraphs finishing with;

That the matters raised in item 1), 2) and 3) in paragraphs seven, eight and nine, above are brought before a Court De-Jure at Common Law under aforementioned great and wise Constitutional Law.

More Bingo Card entries follow;

I, a sovereign Man.
Charles R Marston as opposed to any legal fiction
Without malice,
vexation,
frivolity or
ill will and on my
full commercial liability and
penalty of perjury, with
no admission of liability whatsoever and with my
natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights reserved and
all benefits waived.

I've never quite understood what benefits they are waiving. Certainly not State Benefits, oh no.

All of it vintage FMOTL as espoused by now faded and forgotten gurus. I'm disappointed that he was a bit light on the Treason and there was a complete absence of sedition and distraint. But not a bad effort, 7/10 Charles with your foolish footle folio.

So Charlie's huffed, he's puffed.........and achieved SFA. Still, nice to see someone has a hobby to keep them busy these dark evenings.

Anyway, tomorrow's the day it all kicks off again at some draughty Magistrates court, fag-ends littering the steps, orc-like hoodie-clad regulars shuffling between the listings, shabby dandruff-stained collars of care-worn defence solicitors, bored cops playing candy crush on their smart phones.

Oh, and of course Crabby and the rest of the brave rabble looking for court 14 or wherever it is. The entertainment never stops.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Anyway, tomorrow's the day it all kicks off again at some draughty Magistrates court, fag-ends littering the steps, orc-like hoodie-clad regulars shuffling between the listings, shabby dandruff-stained collars of care-worn defence solicitors, bored cops playing candy crush on their smart phones.

Paints a better picture than actually being there.

[ArthurWankspittle]

No but its a interesting question and not an easy one to answer....

Does it involve thinking? I guessed there was a problem for SovCits.

[exiledscouser]

*****Snip****


First post, but thought the original court ruling might be helpful:

http://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... final1.pdf

No idea who 5rb are, but the decision document certainly looks legitimate.

Hi Aegis, welcome to Q.

You are right, the judgement can also be found on Bailii along with a number of other, equally unsuccessful forays Mr. Pickthall has made into the court system. The best judgement is the one you cited above (CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL and PICKTHALL [2015] EWHC 2141 (QB)).

Whilst considering the instant matter the court drew on a phrase lifted from a 2013 case Hayes v Willoughby;

A large proportion of those engaging in the kind of persistent and deliberate course of targeted oppression with which the Act is concerned will in the nature of things be obsessives and cranks who will commonly believe themselves to be entitled to act as they do."

That sums up a goodly proportion of those featuring in the current threads of Q. In the case of Mr. Pickthorne;

There was no longer any logical connection between his suggested purpose and his acts.

Quite. More damningly;

It appears to me that he has become obsessed and perhaps even exhilarated by his ability to cause distress by repeating long dead allegations over and over again.

That kind of explains some motive for obsessives and cranks; they enjoy it and get pleasure from the impact their distressing behaviour has on others.

This next extract also bears on the approach taken by Neelu Berry;

By accusing each new recipient of corruption if they do not immediately do whatever it is he asks of them, he widens the scope of his campaign to include people who have nothing to do with it.

And, to rely on Common Law interpretation of a tort;

On the evidence as it stands now, it appears probable to me that he simply wants to cause harm.
I consider that it is likely that he is succeeding.

.

Of course, Pickthall ignored the injunction handed down to him at the conclusion of this case - repeatedly and blatantly - before the court finally got fed up with him and gave him a taste of porridge.

Short of a platform of his own, he now seeks to garner support on the back of the PLD morons' anti-everything views.

I'll bet he's sat alone somewhere obsessing over this, writing endlessly, fixated with rage and malice at those in his sights. I wonder whether I'll make the list?

[notorial dissent]

What supposedly happened in 1911?