Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[Burnaby49]

We have The Charities Commission which oversees registered charities but the same thing happens in the UK to a shocking extent. It's not unheard of for charities with multi-million pound budgets to spend virtually nothing on the cause while paying the CEO an astronomical salary.

So my original comment is still kind of valid. If you want to take £16,500 out if a charity for yourself, there are ways to do it.

Yes, but they wouldn't apply here. In larger charities they at least have some cover for high salaries sucking off the funds. We have to hire only the best, need proven fund-raisers, high-priced CEO necessary to run complex operation and give high-profile public face. But this one was probably only a very small charity with no overhead or administration necessary, just donations into a bank account. Since the father was convicted of embezzlement he must have had no legal grounds to argue that he was entitled to the money for any reason. He may have just taken it as his son's power of attorney.

[Hercule Parrot]

Mr Emms said: "I'd been in the court for a couple of hours when they demanded I stand. "I do not stand under your laws. I am a public person. I wasn't there as a witness or on trial. Obviously in this court system I don't have rights. It's ridiculous." He added that he has written a letter to Gloucestershire police saying he has opted out of all laws. "I can drive a car with no tax and do whatever I want," he said. "It's everybody's right."

I look forward to hearing more of Mr Emms, as he carries out his claimed rights. I hope he gets everything he deserves.

[mufc1959]

Mr Emms said: "I'd been in the court for a couple of hours when they demanded I stand. "I do not stand under your laws. I am a public person. I wasn't there as a witness or on trial. Obviously in this court system I don't have rights. It's ridiculous." He added that he has written a letter to Gloucestershire police saying he has opted out of all laws. "I can drive a car with no tax and do whatever I want," he said. "It's everybody's right."

I look forward to hearing more of Mr Emms, as he carries out his claimed rights. I hope he gets everything he deserves.

Not such a rebel as you might think ...

Flanked by two security guards, Mr Emms walked out of the court, but then argued with staff for 15 minutes, before leaving because his parking ticket was about to expire.

Surely as a fully-fledged FOTL he has a magic park anywhere badge to ward off parking tickets!

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like someone walked up and hit him with the stupid stick and then he asked for another. On the plus side, the Gloucestershire Constabulary now has some easy entertainment to look forward to at their leisure. I would say he would be easy low hanging pickings, and he did give them a heads up he was going to be breaking the law. So fair's only fair.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJNlaN2s908

The creepy Mr. Anthony Badalou talking rubbish with some reference to Tobe Leigh.
Mr. B. identifies himself as an accountant, Churchill finance, based in London. Churchill Finance is long defunct and Mr. B is only historically an accounntant, having been struck off.
He is accompanied by Jeb. Just Jeb, says Jeb. And Tobe Leigh.

Where and why they are is not clear.
Tobe is under threat. Of legal eviction.
When asked who is making the threats, Mr. B goes into evasive mode since saying 'Enforcement officers of the Court' is not likely to gain much traction.
Then there issome blather about writs, etc.

Time for lunch, I'll watch the rest of it later.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The creepy Mr. Anthony Badalou talking rubbish with some reference to Tobe Leigh.

"Licencing is a crime. If you want to say, give someone a licence to sell alcohol. Then you have to make alcohol illegal first."
[WPC ]

But that's nothing compared with the genius with the beard.
"Then it's back to James Bond. A licence to kill. How can you give a licence to somebody to do something that is wrong?"
[WPC ]

[Siegfried Shrink]

Lunch done with.

In summary, it seems that they are trying to bring a criminal charge against a normal and legal enforcement process for 'threats'. The WPC asks a few relevant questions which are ignored or sidelined. Typical example of Mr. B and his pseudo-legal 'advice' muddying the waters.
WhenT.Leigh says he has wriiten a letter that had no reply, it is not difficult to imagine it was some sort of utter bollocks that no one replies to.

I am sorry to see Mr. B is still in action as a fountain of poisoned water in the legal desert.

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DNgvqHH6Q

More 'help' from Mr. Badaloo, same idea, report bailffs as criminals. If it could be shown he is profiting off these stupid people he could be said to be preying on them, as it is, it obvious on the face of it that he is using the bewildered to make himself feel important.

As usual, what he propounds is frivolous, vexatious and with no legal merit, but there is no general restraining order prevventing police reports that are an abuse of the process.

[He Who Knows]

Ian Surman
10 hrs

this is the document about policing by consent and you can withdraw your consent and I'm waiting for the home office to come back and tell me how we can as we have under legislation the right to withdraw our consent to a more people can when I find out I'm going to do a mass withdraw consent all those that are interested I would suggest put your name on my Paige or message me somewhere to let me know you're interested I'm hoping to get a response by the 24th of August
gov.uk
Definition of policing by consent
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government…

Good luck with your "mass withdraw consent" Ian Surman

[notorial dissent]

If the "consent" is as coherent as the above statement no one will even bother to read it.

[Hercule Parrot]

Good luck with your "mass withdraw consent" Ian Surman

Does Mr Surman include his address? I might go and burgle his house.

[NYGman]

He doesn't tell you how to find Paige, to tell her you are interested.

[exiledscouser]

Tony Benson QC, commenting within the latest CLC thread on FB launches into a tirade about the state of the court system. He cites a number of legal precedents and kicks off with this beaut;

1. Issuing of a Summons:
Gateshead Justices,ex p.Tesco Stores Ltd [1981] Q.B.470,DC. a summons must be in accordance with Justice Clerks Rules 2005 (S.I.2005 No.545) The granting of summonses is more than a rubber stamping exercise. The person issuing the summons must be authorised to do so and must scrutinise the information to satisfy themselves that the requirements are met and a summons properly granted. See Tesco Stores Ltd [1981] Q.B.470,DC. ARCHBOLD 4-77 PAGE 177 Magistrates criminal

Tescos have been around a while now but I just cant see how a 1981 case can quote the necessity to conform to a Statutory Instrument Instrument that won't actually come into force for another twenty four years. But hey, when you're winging it, lie big.

If you want to read this time-travelling SI its here. They are really quite short and the Explanatory note that is attached does just that, explains them;

EXPLANATORY NOTE

These Rules replace the Justices’ Clerks Rules 1999. These Rules re-enact the 1999 rules with minor and consequential amendments necessary as a result of the Courts Act 2003.

Rule 2 of these Rules provides that the things specified in the Schedule which are authorised to be done by, to or before a single justice of the peace, may be done by, to or before a justices’ clerk.

Rule 3(1) provides that the things specified in paragraphs 1 to 36 of the Schedule may be done instead by, to or before an assistant clerk and specifically authorised by him for the purpose.

Rule 3(2) provides that the power authorised to be exercised by a justices’ clerk at an early administrative hearing under section 50 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 may be exercised instead by an assistant clerk.
Rule 3(3) provides for the manner of recording such specific authority.

Like other Footle types, when quoting law they remind me of the character Rimmer in Red Dwarf who always mis-quotes Space Corps Directives.

But HHJ Benson doesn't let a little matter of a ballsed-up legal reference get in the way of his judicial rant;

ANY COURT WITHOUT A JURY PRESENT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT!
All Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL

Oh right. He continues;

The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”. Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.

If that was even 10% right the whole legal edifice would have been brought to its knees shortly after 1820.

Uh-oh - It's CAPS LOCK time again so you know it must be right;

Magistrates Courts (where this Hearing was held) and all County Courts are Administrative Courts, applying 'Administrative Law'. They are thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND FRAUDULENT.

When I see a well-rehearsed tautological arguement in a post I take a snippet and run it through Google; the whole load of nonsense has been doing the rounds, plagarised by one Footle from another for years and years, so to demonstrate just three (of many) here in 2011 on a site called Freedom Rebels, here in 2016 on GoodF posted by Claw Hammer and finally here also in 2016 on this very forum, the Pete of England thread to be precise when, to demonstrate the entirely circular nature of Freeman-On-The Land piss-takes it was ridiculed in the same way by...erm....myself.

[notorial dissent]

But... But... But... They finded it on de innerwebs so it gots ta be truh.... duh!!! They don't even know what they're quoting means.

[longdog]

You have to remember that the footlers all suffer from Humpty Dumpty syndrome and when they say, or even read something it means exactly what they intend it to mean, neither more nor less.

Or as they would say "Words are defined as affaint defines them".

[Siegfried Shrink]

Thank you, exiledscouser for an interesting post. I watched a few minutes of the chap going on about the common law court and was puzzled.
Is he serious? Does he realise this is all totally pointless. Surely it must be so and he is only in it for the money. There is money involved and it is often a better plan to sting lots of people for a little than try to sting a few people for a lot like Mr.Macrea.
How can he keep a straight face? He must know that whatever he rules, no-one is listening or taking any notice.
I would like to see them get a bit more ambitious and decide to rule on more serious matters.

Is the sea boiling hot, and do pigs have wings?

I have nothing against a bit of cos-play, but not with such unattractive people.

[Gregg]

But... But... But... They finded it on de innerwebs so it gots ta be truh.... duh!!! They don't even know what they're quoting means.

The internet is the highest and final forum of constitutional interpretation, it says so in Magna Carta.

[notorial dissent]

But... But... But... They finded it on de innerwebs so it gots ta be truh.... duh!!! They don't even know what they're quoting means.

The internet is the highest and final forum of constitutional interpretation, it says so in Magna Carta.

[grixit]

Is the sea boiling hot, and do pigs have wings?

Back in the 80s a judge actually did quote this, in a trial over a food company's desire to label turkey ham as just ham, which was against regulations. The judge quoted the poem up to "...and whether pigs have wings", following with "they don't" and denying the petition.

[exiledscouser]

John Paterson has been lodging papers at the High Court in London. Oh yes. There isn’t a ruin fraud or conspiracy that the Queen and PM haven’t entered into against Mr. P and now he’s after his fifty million quid.

More time wasting twattery from the poisonous pen of EWE, there can be no doubt.