http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/401f7/401f7d0b55f0afe3d9ab9703a6a7e6f4b4394395" alt="bang head :brickwall:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1fdaf/1fdaf730e5e8c10accbb9a744875b7f3f15e1a69" alt="Rolling Eyes :roll:"
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’
Maybe not strict FOTLders but definitely in Princess Neelu territory.[They] are clear the local authority has taken their child for the purpose of making a profit by way of unlawful adoption.
I find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’
It is possible to register a birth as 'Child' , I believe. I have always thought that children should choose their own names or be allows to evolve one.Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings.
IANAL but I think family court has a civil level of decision on evidence, i.e. balance of probability as opposed to criminal, beyond reasonable doubt. In this case there is a no-win situation. You can't not do something for the child on the basis that you would have to wait for dad's criminal trial and possible appeal. You also can't give a decision without some explanation for it.Siegfried Shrink wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:24 amI find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’
However, if I were running the father's defence I'd use this highly predudicial article to get the case thrown out. The father's case is sub judice, in the first place and his presumed guilt has been published in a national newspaper.
It is a troubling interface of law, Sigi. Presumption of innocence in the criminal context cannot be wholly translated into the Family Court. Also the criminal threshold is 'proven beyond reasonable doubt', while in civil proceedings it's 'balance of probability'. In the criminal court the rights of the accused are foremost, in the family court it's the rights of the children.Siegfried Shrink wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:24 amI find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’
However, if I were running the father's defence I'd use this highly prejudicial article to get the case thrown out. The father's case is sub judice, in the first place and his presumed guilt has been published in a national newspaper.
The reference to Francis II reminds me of the ramblings of the 'Expert in all Legal Matters', who has a (TL:DR) section on Papal Encyclicals on his site. A direct connection seems unlikely. Are both parties drawing from the same source? Or is it just the case that the Catholic church is a conspiracy magnet?They said they were asserting ‘divine, inalienable and natural rights, and all rights here asserted and reserved are subject to accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’
The US cray crays run to two schools, either the Vatican(and the City and the Queen in concert) is the source of all evil and conspiracy or it the shining beacon of rights and all that's good, or both at the same time, see Judge Anna.John Uskglass wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:49 amThe reference to Francis II reminds me of the ramblings of the 'Expert in all Legal Matters', who has a (TL:DR) section on Papal Encyclicals on his site. A direct connection seems unlikely. Are both parties drawing from the same source? Or is it just the case that the Catholic church is a conspiracy magnet?They said they were asserting ‘divine, inalienable and natural rights, and all rights here asserted and reserved are subject to accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’
The reference to 'Lex Mercatoria' is also interesting. My limited exploration of FMOTLism hasn't turned that one up before. Is it one of the standard props that I've missed?
Transubstantiation has a lot to answer forSo in essence you can have your conspiracy and eat it too.
John Uskglass wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:59 pmTransubstantiation has a lot to answer forSo in essence you can have your conspiracy and eat it too.![]()
You say that like those are drawbacks. But who wants to send their children to mass indoctrination centres (aka 'school')? Vaccines cause autism and allopathy as a whole is a sham; all parents who know The TruthTM will be paying their friendly neighbourhood Naturopath to treat their kids. You don't need no stinking driving licence of passport to exercise your Common Law right to travel. I don't know what Freemen would say about #5, but it would probably be "Fiat currency Fractional Reserve Banking something something money grows on trees!"But now a problem for the kid to (1) get into primary school absent proof of sufficient age, (2) get surgery or necessary childhood vaccinations for lack of evidence of who were his parents who could give permission, (3) get a driver's license, (4) get a passport, and, (5) in his old age, prove that he was old enough to qualify for pension and Soc.Sec benefits.
My guess would be along the lines of "Old age? That's caused by the TOXINS that Monsanto, GSK, BAT, TRW and capitalist farmers put into our bodies! Smoke weed, drink urine, never take any legal drugs, eat as little as possible, and you'll never grow old! You might die of polio or simple malnutrition instead, but these are the breaks."sue858 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:15 pmI don't know what Freemen would say about #5, but it would probably be "Fiat currency Fractional Reserve Banking something something money grows on trees!"But now a problem for the kid to (1) get into primary school absent proof of sufficient age, (2) get surgery or necessary childhood vaccinations for lack of evidence of who were his parents who could give permission, (3) get a driver's license, (4) get a passport, and, (5) in his old age, prove that he was old enough to qualify for pension and Soc.Sec benefits.
Not to mention possible custody issues down the line, and people like this inevitably have custody and Child Services issues.fortinbras wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:09 pm Also, in the US, going back to the Nixon era, the kid is not a tax deduction without an SSN, and the parents cannot get a SSN for him/her without a birth certificate. The parents, by not getting a birth certificate for their child, have no legal proof of their relationship to the kid - this becomes a matter of life or death if they need to authorize surgery for the child or some similar emergency.
Parents who think they are somehow doing the kid a favor by keeping him/her off the bureaucratic radar at birth are actually creating serious - dangerous and expensive - problems for their child for the child's entire lifespan.
It's the same in the US. No birth certificate means no Social Security Number and no way to prove American citizenship. Most legitimate employers require both. Oh, and you can't vote, either (at least in Texas).Footloose52 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:11 am I'd add to the list of problems in the previous post, at least in the UK, 5) getting a job.
One thing a person has to prove is their right to work in the UK. Acceptable documents are a passport, EEC National Identity Card, a Registration Certificate or document certifying Permanent Residence issued by the Home Office, a Permanent Residence Card issued by the Home Office, a current Biometric Immigration Document, a current passport showing exemption from immigration controls, a current Immigration Status Document, a full birth or adoption certificate issued in the UK, a certificate of registration or naturalisation as a British citizen. Most of these need to be accompanied by official proof of the persons National Insurance number as well (that is a similar concept to the US Social Security number I believe).
So, without a birth certificate you cannot get a passport or EU Identity Card so you fall at the first hurdle for getting a job in the UK.