Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[grixit]

The common law view was that suicide was contempt for God's gift of life. It was so contrary to the natural order that the bodies of suicides were sometimes beheaded, quartered, burned, or buried at the crossroads, lest they return as vampires.

[Hercule Parrot]

The common law view was that suicide was contempt for God's gift of life. It was so contrary to the natural order that the bodies of suicides were sometimes beheaded, quartered, burned, or buried at the crossroads, lest they return as vampires.

John Harris's family must have been dismayed when the common law patriots arrived to carry this out.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deodand

Here is some interesting old common law stuff connected with death that the common law fans could have fun with.

Before 1066, animals and objects causing serious damage or even death were called banes and were handed over directly to the victim in a practice known as noxal surrender. Early legislation also directed people to pay specific sums of money, called wergild, as compensation for actions that resulted in someone else's death.

The transition from bane to deodand remains obscure. By the second half of the thirteenth century, however, the coroner's rolls are replete with references to vats, tubs, horses, carts, boats, stones, trees, etc. The rules on which they depended were not easily explained by the old commentators. The law distinguished, for instance, between a thing in motion and a thing standing still. If a horse or other animal in motion killed a person, whether infant or adult, or if a cart ran over him, it was forfeited as a deodand. On the other hand, if death were caused by falling from a cart or a horse at rest, the law made the chattel a deodand if the person killed were an adult, but not if he were below the years of discretion.

Deodands were still being forfeited throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, although not as frequently as before. Some scholars think the practice died out completely in the 18th century. Others speculated that deodands had become nominal assessment that were routinely levied. Another possibility is that the practice was receiving less official attention because the profits from deodands were no longer going into royal coffers. By then, the crown had long sold off the rights to deodands from most jurisdictions to lords, townships and corporations

This is probably the first time in the 40 odd years I have known the word I ever found a use for it..
I am glad to throw the concept out there to FOTLandland to mangle as they wish.

[Hercule Parrot]

Paul Kayley - I was a PC and have several friends who still are. I was talking to one today about all this and he was clueless about the legal fiction's necessity for maritime law. Technically the People are the law. The law is supposed to reflect what behaviour and actions the majority of reasonable-minded people deem to be acceptable or not. In a nutshell, constitutional law relates to how we collectively agreed as a People to be governed and judged, as does common law but non-constitutional common laws can be annulled by a jury verdict (thus we only allow behavioural laws to continue which we'd want to live by ourselves). Maritime law is contract law with penalties. Hopefully someone can refine that or correct if wrong.

Ooh, I think Kayley LJ may be on the verge of a breakthrough! So, he rightly says that the law is supposed to reflect what behaviour and actions the majority of reasonable-minded people deem to be acceptable or not.

Okay Paul, so how shall we go about defining that?

A) Elect representatives to participate in robust public debates before enacting carefully crafted laws to set out exactly the rights and obligations of a citizen, adjudicated by independent and transparent legal process?

B) Assume that what King John and some Barons wanted in 1215 fully represents the views of all the ordinary citizens of 21st Century Britain? Insist that nothing should be changed, nothing can be changed, and even the suggestion of it would be treason.

Think carefully, Paul. Although you sound like a bit of a bell-end, your underlying thought process is still limping along. Listen to your inner voice - is the answer really "B", as preached by Dismal Dave, SovCit Mullah of Daventry?

[morrand]

Paul Kayley - I have heard that there are 16 main offences under Common Law. 1. Murder 2. Manslaughter 3. GBH 4. ABH 5. Assault 6. Harassment 7. Breach of peace 8. Fraud 9. Extortion 10. Robbery... TBC

Paul Kayley - Where was I... Yes ... These will be offences in Common Law under precedence due to successful jury based hearings in proper Crown Courts, in addition to unwritten but customary accepted laws such as murder. ....11. Theft 12. Criminal damage .... In the area of neglect... 13. Wrecklessness 14. Carelessness 15. Dangerousness 16. Breach of contract.

My recollection, from a long-ago law school legal history class, was that there were 10 felonies recognized at common law: Murder, manslaughter, mayhem, rape, sodomy, arson, grand larceny, robbery, burglary and jail-breaking.

Not exactly original sources, but from my copy of Kenny (1934):

Amongst indictable crimes, the common law singled out some as being so conspicuously heinous that a man adjudged guilty of any of them must incur—not as any express part of his sentence but as a consequence that necessarily ensued upon it—a forfeiture of property, whether of his lands or of his goods or of both. Such crimes were called "Felonies." The other, and lesser, crimes were known as "Transgressions" or "Trespasses"; and did not obtain their present name of misdemeanors until a much later date. A felony is, therefore, a crime which either involved by common law such a forfeiture, or else which has been placed by statute on the footing of those crimes which did involve it. (This definition, it will be seen, includes treason; and, accordingly, the Statute of Treasons [25 Edw. III. st. 5, c. 2] speaks of "treason or other felony." But the differences of procedure between cases of treason and those of other felonies are so numerous and important that treasons have usually to be discussed apart; and hence, for brevity's sake, the term "felony" is commonly employed as exclusive of them.) ...

Familiar instances of felonies are—murder, manslaughter, burglary, housebreaking, larceny, bigamy, rape; whilst the most conspicuous instances of misdemeanors are less heinous crimes, like perjury, conspiracy, fraud, false pretences, libel, riot, assault. The differences between felonies and misdemeanors are no longer so numerous as they once were. Amongst those, however, that have now disappeared there are some whose historical importance requires notice.

1. Originally ... every felony tacitly produced a forfeiture; whilst no misdemeanor did, and in extremely few misdemeanors could forfeiture be imposed even as an express part of the sentence. ...
2. Originally all felonies (except petty larceny) were punished with death; whilst no misdemeanor was [except heresy]. Hence the idea of capital punishment became so closely connected with that of felony that any statute making a crime a felony made it capital by silent implication; whilst in en enactment which created a mere misdemeanor even the widest general words could not suffice to make it capital, and nothing but the most express language could suffice.
3. Originally, a felon could not, at his trial, call any witnesses in his defence, or have any counsel to defend him (except for the argument of mere points of law); whereas a misdemeanant, like a defendant in a civil case, could have both. These disabilities were removed in 1702 and in 1836 respectively.

No doubt it would cheer the PLD crowd enormously to see that they could charge various bill collectors, et al., with Larceny, deny them benefit of counsel at trial, put them to death, and work forfeiture of their property, all in the guise of common law. I won't deny them their glee by further quoting Kenny's discussion of "claim of right" as a defense, in which, by way of example, he states explicitly that a landlord seizing something in distress of rent would not be punishable for theft.

[SteveUK]

Someone else with looming housing problems....

Graeme Marland
Cheers for the add, a wee question to announce my arrival here. I am a council tenant, and in so being have already given my consent away, if I choose the path of taking up the oath, will my home be at risk from my further actions ?

..and the replies are an interesting insight into the inner workings of the rebels minds vacuum between the ears.

David RobinsonDavid and 6 others manage the membership, moderators, settings and posts for Practical Lawful Dissent. If they threaten to kick you out (which is extremely doubtful) you could carry on paying under duress and still be acting under the law. we all have a duty to distress the regime so have a bit of fun with it too.

I have council house how do I seize it?
Am l then liable for repairs?

Marcus Chamberlain
Marcus Chamberlain You can seize the property under law as David mentions above.

No the council would be liable for any repairs to the outside of the property unless structural inside.

George Griffiths Thanks David Robinson New to this and wife threatening to leave .cause non payment clowncil tax.she won't sighn n won't believe in me let alone lr
So who would be liable for repairs?

George Griffiths At moment they're puting in New bathroom n kitchen. Don't want to disrupt that it's bad enough already..

George Griffiths So another 2 wks or so

[Chaos]

Someone else with looming housing problems....

Graeme Marland
Cheers for the add, a wee question

George Griffiths At moment they're puting in New bathroom n kitchen.

good thing he went there to wee.

[aesmith]

Changing the subject a little, does the panel think that the Common Law Court deserves it's own thread? It seems to be cropping up in various places now, not solely in PLD but also in Crabbie's Council Tax group.

[longdog]

Changing the subject a little, does the panel think that the Common Law Court deserves it's own thread? It seems to be cropping up in various places now, not solely in PLD but also in Crabbie's Council Tax group.

I'd say no... Not yet at least. The CLC seems to be the same faces with the same old bollocks so the same old thread should do it. Crabbie's CT group is essentially the same idiots spouting the same shit so this thread seems as good a place as any for their ramblings.

As an aside... Is it just me or is the PLD group dying on its arse? I noticed earlier today that PAYG Robinson seems to have lost control of the group and it's full of FMOTL garbage that he never would've allowed (because it's not based solely on Magnum Cartridge) and the 'New Chartist' gobbledegook.

[Wakeman52]

The 'New Chartist' gobbledegook.

Their website is at least better designed than many:

https://www.newchartistmovement.org.uk/ ... roposals-1

It's just a pity that all that effort has gone to waste.

[SteveUK]

Changing the subject a little, does the panel think that the Common Law Court deserves it's own thread? It seems to be cropping up in various places now, not solely in PLD but also in Crabbie's Council Tax group.

I'd say no... Not yet at least. The CLC seems to be the same faces with the same old bollocks so the same old thread should do it. Crabbie's CT group is essentially the same idiots spouting the same shit so this thread seems as good a place as any for their ramblings.

As an aside... Is it just me or is the PLD group dying on its arse? I noticed earlier today that PAYG Robinson seems to have lost control of the group and it's full of FMOTL garbage that he never would've allowed (because it's not based solely on Magnum Cartridge) and the 'New Chartist' gobbledegook.

it certainly does seem as dead as the dodo. I think all of last years amazing wins total fails have rattled the minions. Wouldn't surprise me if Crabbie took a lot of the marks and started his own movement in 2018. He's clearly a knob head but to be fair, does put his money where his mouth is.

Anyhows - time for the airport with Mrs SteveUK for a week off, have fun Quatloosians and see you soon!

[hucknallred]

It seems Crab Bait is no longer an admin on PLD.

[longdog]

It seems Crab Bait is no longer an admin on PLD.

Jumped, fell or pushed I wonder.

[JimUk1]

It seems Crab Bait is no longer an admin on PLD.

Jumped, fell or pushed I wonder.

Expect a splinter group soon then.

Now that Dave has let them down, it’s time to move onto a new guru.

[notorial dissent]

I'd say Crabby is a good bet, he certainly has the temperament for it. The one thing that group has a serious shortage of is ANYTHING resembling leadership material.

[hucknallred]

Colon has put a couple of videos up.

40 minutes of dreary Dave who wasn't let down by his lift this time.

30 minutes of some bloke banging on about the chartist crap

A marathon 75 minutes on the CLC

[Siegfried Shrink]

I made a comment but I am going to file it here in case it is deleted and I can annoy them by reposting it.

The so called 'Common law court' is just a charade. It is no more than a bunch of adults(?) playing in a Wendy house and the only relation to reality is the use of words commonly recognised as English, but not recognised as making any sense in the order they utter them. Theoretically, the 'court' has no basis in British law but more practically, being a ficticious entity, it has zero powers of enforcement.
This means that whatever the one man 'Common Law Court' decides, absolutely no one cares because there is simply nothing the fake 'court' can do to enforce its judgements. Therefore the process is totally useless apart from the amusement of those who like to watch trainwrecks.
Just ask any of the promotors of this idea just how they plan to enforce anything they say, and there can be no possible answer, apart from saying that the court's victims will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. Which it won't, if a couple of dozen hapless wankers are responsible for organising it.

[TheNewSaint]

Just ask any of the promotors of this idea just how they plan to enforce anything they say

Or, for that matter, what stops anyone else from creating their own common law court and overturning their rulings.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Or, for that matter, what stops anyone else from creating their own common law court and overturning their rulings.

Don't be silly, the original common law court could then be made Supreme Common Law Court and un-overturn the ruling. See how they like that!!!!11!!. They would have to add 'No come backs' to the ruling. Anyone who cheats on 'no comebacks' is out of the game and has to go home or suffer Chinese burns. And be called bad names.

[exiledscouser]

Changing the subject a little, does the panel think that the Common Law Court deserves it's own thread? It seems to be cropping up in various places now, not solely in PLD but also in Crabbie's Council Tax group.

I'd say no... Not yet at least. The CLC seems to be the same faces with the same old bollocks so the same old thread should do it. Crabbie's CT group is essentially the same idiots spouting the same shit so this thread seems as good a place as any for their ramblings.

As an aside... Is it just me or is the PLD group dying on its arse? I noticed earlier today that PAYG Robinson seems to have lost control of the group and it's full of FMOTL garbage that he never would've allowed (because it's not based solely on Magnum Cartridge) and the 'New Chartist' gobbledegook.

it certainly does seem as dead as the dodo. I think all of last years amazing wins total fails have rattled the minions. Wouldn't surprise me if Crabbie took a lot of the marks and started his own movement in 2018. He's clearly a knob head but to be fair, does put his money where his mouth is.

Anyhows - time for the airport with Mrs SteveUK for a week off, have fun Quatloosians and see you soon!

Whilst Mr & Mrs SteveUK sun themselves and I look out on a blanket of unseasonal snow ....

Heresy is at work within the ranks!

Dismal Dave has 'awoken' to the fact that the form of PLD'ism he's been promoting all these years is (shock);

Wholly wrong!
Totally flawed!
Without foundation!

The scales have (not for the first time) fallen from his eyes. Before we go into his Road to Damascus moment, it's worth remembering that Dismal can be relied upon to jump from one Big Thing to the Next Big Thing, particularly if he gets the steering wheel. In 2010 he was Bustachemtrails, a full-on dyed-in-the-wool Footler, issuing his liens, firing off three and five letters, clogging up the mail system with his irrevocable estoppels. A true and fearless Freeman champion, confidently striding the world, unshakable in his beliefs, spending most of his time in the wildernesses of Yorkshire on the lam from the Glastonbury "Policy Enforcers" over an unpaid parking ticket.

However.....given the somewhat flawed nature of his character he had the inevitable falling out with the admins on the now largely defunct FMOTL forum and decided that LR was the way forward, clutching a tatty newspaper clipping from the Daily Telegraph that had shown him the way and placing slavish reliance on something a bunch of geriatric Barons had done back in 2001.

So long Strawmen!
Farewell fake Footlism!
Arrivederci Blacks Law Dictionary (1835 version)!

Like some old-style evangelist he forsook his past beliefs and emerged afresh, immersing himself totally into the gospel of LR, dismissing (or distraining most probably) all the Freeman nonsense he had so long held dear(!) and, going it alone, sweeping up and carrying with him a not unimpressive 12k Farce Book following in his wake.

But time and a good falling-out never stands still for Dismal's Delusional Diets, with apologies to The Fast Show;

this week....... I 'arve been mostly readin' .....Ken D'Oudney

and, although I didn't think I'd ever see it, the Barons are, to quote my daughter, "so dumped".

There is so much work to be done to update this group with accurate information since it came to our understanding (and evidenced in Kenn D'Oudney's book Democracy Defined The Manifesto) that Article 61's invocation was flawed....the barons are impotent etc.....I wonder if we should just start again?

Article 61's invocation was flawed? Yes you did read that right, straight from Dreary's keyboard.

Rip it up and start again? Isn't there a song about that.....

Anyway, The Bill of Rights, long a cornerstone of Fotle and PLD doctrine is also now, well, treacherous too. Innit.

The treaty of Nice was evidently treason but, to use the Declaration and Bill of Rights (both treasonous statutes) also grants the imposter government with parliamentary sovereignty which if accepted, means that the crown has to do what the government state.....

Yup, its all over for the Nobs and Nobility;

Even though we have used Article 61 successfully on many occassions it cannot be relied upon nor can the barons committee be relied upon to achieve a remedy to the institutionalised treasonous regime.

My bold above. Like I say, heresy.

But still, time for a new approach and, although temporarily adrift, Dismal still wants to press forwards with something at least, not the least of which is to 'round up' the usual suspects;

Once the treason has been evidenced in front of a jury and a verdict pronounced there would be many arrests made.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Dave once you'd be humanity's jailer? And the punishment for these unfortunates?

With crimes like Treason, Sedition etc the punishments are extreme as they should be.

Oooh 'eck.

..total asset stripping of all these corrupt corporations, imposter government ministers etc would mean the treasury would be overflowing with funds.....we could then put everything right within our own commonwealth and rebuild the countries that we have allowed our (so called) representatives to destroy.

The only thing I remember from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar was that plotters plotting rebellion usually fail to think things through to its conclusion and that those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned ever to repeat them. With an overflowing treasury in the hands of Crabby and co. I wonder how that cake would be cut?

But that's just never going to happen because, as you'd expect, the treasons continues!

There is an abundant amount of treason evidence that we can draw upon, for example 'Shoehorned into the EU FCO 10/ 3048' which is a file created by David Barnby which he collected from the public records office. That file provides evidence that the Right Dishonourable Edward Heath committed both Sedition and Treason by signing up to the EU on the first of January 1973.

Seems Kenn D'oH! has shown Dreary the True Path. Well, a new one for a while at least.

I personally apologise for not seeing the double think withn the Bill and Dec of Rights....which cannot be denied to be anything but treasonous statutes (not constitutional law documents) after reading Kenn D'Oudneys book.

All this mea culpa - is there something getting into the water in Daventry? Its time for the Ministry of Truth to do some re-writing, culling all the now discredited past 'Layman's Guides' to PLD. Dreary's faithful but rather dim follower Connor who has put much time and effort into these sacred texts is up for it already, stating unquestioningly;

Connor wrote;
As for the files, why not just scrap most of them apart from the successful notices? Or, if you feel like we could do with a clean slate, delete them all? (Just a suggestion btw)

That's right Connor, there's books to burn. Dismal Dave slaps him down;

Thanks Connor Jason Wilkinson....not being funny but there aren't many I would trust to accurately change the files that need changing...deleting most is probably the best idea and well overdue in fact.

So there you have it, watch out for the wheels as they come off and the squabbles as they fight over the ashes.

It's like a bunch of kids being told the Tooth Fairy ain't real.

In the meantime, whilst Dave is busy chucking the baby out with the bathwater, where does this leave all those followers who've lost their properties or inflated small debts to crippling huge ones or got themselves arrested, all by following Dismal's previous teachings and beliefs?

I love to end on a bit of alliteration;

Dismal Daventry Dave in Dreadful Disarray Dumbs Down, Digs Dogmatic Disintegration & Destroys Desideratum.