The next comedy court will be convening in Wigan near Manchester on the 28th October. I've not heard of a court sitting on a Sunday but the CLC likes to break with tradition. Like holding a fair hearing with open and transparent proceedings and an unbiased jury pool. This time its a 'class action' demanding the return of 114 children currently removed from their mothers following proceedings in the family court.
Sheila Sudlow appears to be the driver of this latest round of judicial nonsense, she seems to have an interest in the case as her own child or children are similarly either in care or fostered out. Ms. Sudlow whose entire wardrobe appears to be tasteful shell suits is quite a driven individual it seems. Quite why she needs to convene another court with the same objectives when the last one was such a resounding success for her isn't clear.
After all, every social worker and council official in the CLC dock was unanimously found guilty, each was required to pay £75,000 in fines & step down from office immediately. Oh and she
awarded herself was awarded by the CLC jury £25,000 in compo from each of the various defendants for all the stress and hassle. If she ever does get paid out I'm buying shares in JD Sports.
She is promoting the event & venue
by a post on PLD which unusually has attracted some not entirely sympathetic or quite 'on message' comments.
Our very own "Back from the Dead" Dave kicks things off with a diatribe containing the words high treason, Treason, treasonous, treason, treason Treason, err fracking and an entreaty that;
Dismal Dave wrote:if I am missing something please enlighten me...cheers...
Levi asks;
So will the jury be looking at 114 cases on this day to make that decision? If they decide yes the government allowed them to be taken unlawfully then what?? If they decide no they didn't then what?? I'm just interested to know how all this is going to work in reality.
Reality is such a bitch ain't it.
Simon Shackleford however is in no doubt;
We need numbers and mass awareness first before proper infrastructure and judicial common law process can be installed and enforced...it is ongoing but in its infancy at present.
Given that their meetings rallies and even CLC sessions rarely get even into three figures (Scottish venues have in the past attracted just three) the wait is going to be a long one.
Primula calls Shackleford out;
Simon Shackleford You've hit on the glaring problem with this common law court. It has no means whatsoever of enforcing its judgements whereas the state's courts have the will, the means and the power to enforce theirs.
It's all well and good sending a 'judgement' (£10inc P&P) to the council saying council tax has been abolished but the council aren't going to take a blind bit of notice of it. Why should they?
A few people from the internet sit in a room and pretend they're a court and people are supposed to think their 'judgements' are in any way binding? Really? How can people be so naive?
Indeed.
Shackleford's response draws deeply on the Footle lexicon;
Primula Smith So what are you trying to say? I don't know when it was removed by stealth and by degrees...now you have statutes and Acts....what they don't want you to know is that you are only policed by these with your consent...Admiralty law, law of the sea...or am I making this up?
Erm...you're making it up. And there's more;
Primula Smith The only legitimate courts would consist of a trial by jury, a judgement by your peers and the Judge wouldn't pass sentence, the jury would....how many of these are in existence in our nation? Statutes involve victimless crime...no such thing under common law. No loss harm or injury to another or his property and be honourable in contractual dealings, no fraud....that's it, anything else isn't lawful...learn the difference between lawful and legal. Many people have been discharged from their accusations under statutory acts when they stand under common law and reveal their legal fiction birth certificate and revoke it.
Primula isn't fazed by OPCA twaddle however - go Primula!!!!;
"I don't know when it was removed by stealth and by degrees...now you have statutes and Acts"
Common law hasn't been removed but many common law offences have. Attempted suicide and blasphemy were both common law offences and they have both been abolished by statute for the very good reason they have no place in a modern secular society.
"what they don't want you to know is that you are only policed by these with your consent"
Consent of the governed refers to collective consent not individual. This is the whole basis of a modern democracy.
".Admiralty law, law of the sea...or am I making this up?"
I wouldn't say you were making it up but it's complete nonsense. Where did you get this ridiculous idea from?
She's on a roll now and the next salvo is excellent;
"The only legitimate courts would consist of a trial by jury, a judgement by your peers"
Is this the old Magna Carta thing again? If so you need to keep reading after the 'by your peers' bit and get to the 'or according to law' bit. There has never been an absolute right to trial by jury.
"the Judge wouldn't pass sentence, the jury would"
More nonsense. Juries in the UK have never passed sentence in criminal cases. That is and always has been the judge's responsibility.
"Statutes involve victimless crime...no such thing under common law."
Well going back to my previous post who was the victim in suicide or blasphemy? Actually I'll answer that for you... It was god apparently.
" No loss harm or injury to another or his property and be honourable in contractual dealings, no fraud"
OK... How would you apply that to people who contract for loans or contract for the supply of utilities but don't want to pay the bills?
".learn the difference between lawful and legal."
Lawful - That which is permitted by law.
Legal. - 1) That which is permitted by law. 2) Pertaining to the law.
The argument that legal and lawful mean different things when discussing what is and what isn't permitted by law is nonsense. They mean the same thing.
Simon is very much on the back foot. He's put out a plaintiff cry for assistance from Crabbie, Dreary Dave and five others but help there came little. The exchange winds down with Shackleford introducing the usual paedophilic accusations;
Again...imagine my surprise, the corrupt in charge of decision making...you couldn't make it up, could you? The same political class of paedophiles who shut down the Heath case...couldn't imagine why? Anyone who trusts these rats should reconsider? We are governed by Oligarcs, despotic rule, these should be representative of the people not taking more of our freedoms.
.
It's like Godwin's Law with kiddie fiddlers substituting for Nazis when your argument is going down the shitter.
A bit later on in the thread James is asking;
What's the point of a court if you've already decided the outcome?
Primula, who should get the red carpet treatment if she ever joins Q says this;
The verdicts don't carry any weight at all because nobody cares about the opinions of a 'court' which selects its jury members, if any, via Facebook on the basis that they will bring in the verdicts that one Scotsman playing at being a judge has already decided.
John Smith doesn't even believe in his own 'court'. He's removed most of the posts he made about the last 'child custody' case because he was threatened with contempt of court proceedings. If the common law 'court' had any power at all why didn't he stick to his guns and tell the 'system' to get lost and assert the primacy of the common law court?
This could've been the actual show-down between the state courts and the common law courts but the common law 'court' folder like a cheap card table.
The whole thing is a scam. £10 per page for worthless crap and now he's trying to raise £1500 to 'pay for a site'.
Bravo Primula. It's pointed out that documents cost £7, not ten but Primula observes that worthless crap is still worthless crap, whatever the price.
Delusional Darren Sayward isn't having this though. He's won with CLC documents, WON I TELL YOU! and that courts (even the real ones) do recognise them;
There is nothing stopping anybody from convening their own court. As long as it's done with a jury and follows all the correct procedure. As for the documents not being worth anything, try telling that to the staff at Manchester Magistrates. I took my bundle in for my case and included the clc council tax judgement. As the courts won't issue you with a receipt, i asked them to court stamp every document as proof they had been put before the court. They happily stamped every document until the clc ct order. The poor bloke turned white and just simply said "sorry, i can't deface a court document" I had to explain repeatedly to both himself and his manager that it was only a copy, and not the original, before they would stamp it. So i would say most certainly that the courts do recognize them.
Primula again;
Darren... Why do you think all of the jury list documents on the site are blank?
Can you seriously not see that the way John Smith has set up his 'court', with jury members selected for their loyalty to the cause, means the whole thing is a complete sham?
How is justice served by selecting jurors from a pool of people who will bring it the predetermined verdict?
The thread tails off into a flat earth discussion.
I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the above exchange - thank you Primula, thought I'd preserve this in case the censorship fairy gets to work.
