Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[The Seventh String]

In recent times relics of Norman French and even Latin have largely been replaced by vernacular terms with the same meaning, so pretty well everything now is in English, all you have to do is learn how the words are used in context.

It’s a strange process, FMOTL language re-defining.

In law, words, unless specifically defined otherwise in relevant law, carry their everyday ordinary meaning and as few specifically legal definitions are created as possible. The FMOTLers reverse that. They look for the most obsure ways to interpret what a word means then claim it’s that and only that definition that is the correct legal one. And the older the definition or the longer that meaning has passed out of everyday use the better. It’s like how the 1215 Carta is the only one that counts because it was the first and all after it therefore imposters because.......erm......”reasons???”

As the UK’s legal systems have dropped the old French and Latin legal phrases so the law and its processes are easier for everyone to understand and participate in, the FMOTLers insist on using antique forms of French and Latin, including importing phrases for concepts which were never used in any UK jurisdiction in the first place.

And when faced with a need to understand the law they don’t go and read the law, but for more erm....reasons....assume the one thing the court will not apply is the law as published or court procedure as published. Then make up a load of dingos kidneys, spout pseudo-legal Latin in court and pronounce themselves baffled why despite obviously winning hands down because their incantations clearly out-magicked the witch or wizard appearing for the other party the Mage(istrate)s still declared they lost and they’d better pay their tax/fine/whatever or else.

They’ll re-discover trial by combat next. Can’t see them volunteering to undergo trial by ordeal, though if they insist on exercising their medieval rights maybe it would be fair and proper to offer them the option of putting their hands in the court canteen chip fryer for a while.

[notorial dissent]

As both The Seventh String and Siegfried Shrink pointed, out and going back to said, FOTL's/sovcits NEVER EVER actually read even a part of the law, let alone the WHOLE law, or the comments on it, but rather take it out of context, and more often made up bits and then proclaim they have been wronged. As I have said before, illiteracy and laziness make a powerful force for fail. That's one of the reasons that the old, long out of date legal dictionaries are so popular.

[MaritalArtist]

That's one of the reasons that the old, long out of date legal dictionaries are so popular.

Another reason is they are out of copyright and free to download. Why pay for a current up to date dictionary when you can get an obsolete one for free?
My favourite is the Black's Law definition of a driver as someone engaged in commerce. The current version (available to buy online for about £70) states
"driver: 1. Someone who steers and propels a vehicle. 2. Someone who herds animals; a drover. 3. A piece of software that allows a computer to work with another piece of hardware such as a mouse or a printer."
I'm not a piece of computer software, I'm a traveller!!
Also
"person: A human being. – Also termed natural person."
Another one bites the dust!
"

[longdog]

"driver: 1. Someone who steers and propels a vehicle..."

Easy... Just declare your vehicle to be something else like a personal conveyance, an auto-mobile or ecclesiastical pursuit chariot and then the law doesn't apply. QED.

[MaritalArtist]

Here's some case law I just cherry-picked -

What is a TRAVELER?
The term is used in a broad sense to designate those who patronize inns
Walling v. Potter, 35 Conn. 1S5

I'm not driving, I'm patronising inns!

This is fun!

[Pottapaug1938]

When I began law school, in September of 1974, was naive enough to buy a copy of the then-current Black's Law Dictionary. I may have actually used it a few times, during my years of practice; but mostly, I remember it being crammed with pages upon pages of fusty Latin phrases which were so ancient that I would be unlikely ever to come across them in any court document or appellate court decision. Years ago, I gave the thing to Goodwill; and not, I almost wish that I had it, so that I could troll the FMOTLers with some random Latin phrase, and offer it was proof that their claims are no good. The phrase wouldn't even have to be relevant; it would only need to be gen-yoo-wine Latin, and appear in an old edition of Black's.

[morrand]

They’ll re-discover trial by combat next.

They already have.

(OK, to be fair, no cue that it was a FMOTL in that case, but near enough.)

[SteveUK]

Idiot Tconlory thinks here in the UK we have the right to take up arms against the government, because....

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.[

does this mean that our bill of rights gives us the right to bare arms as it was based on the 1st amendment american constitution.....??

The problem being the bill of rights 1689 came after the 1st amendment , unfortunately, the 1st amendment was adopted in 1791. Well, thats one problem with his logic at least.

So, thats a no.

[Burnaby49]

There's also an issue with the fact that the constitutional right to bear arms is in the second amendment.

2 - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[5][6]

[SteveUK]

So, apart from the wrong amendment, and the fact the bill of rights came first, a watertight argument.

[Burnaby49]

And the fact that the American Constitution, as critical as it's influence is in the interpretation of American legislation, is totally irrelevant to the British judicial process. I'm not aware that your courts rely on foreign legislation in the interpretation of British law.

[Siegfried Shrink]

have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

This seems to describe the present day practice on the topic. If you are a country landowner or have acess to some rough shooting or belong to a clay pigeon club or have some other acceptable and reasonable need, a shotgun certificate is no real problem, if you live in a tower block and have a patchy record, not so much so. This is what is meant by condition and allowed by law. Fire arms certificates for rifles are bit trickier but in general there is a presumption that 'respectable' people should be licenced.

I suspect that there is little demographic overlap between 'respectable' people and fans of fmotlry in general. Their 'condition' is their problem, not tyranny.

[longdog]

There's no legal requirement to actually belong to a clay pigeon club before you are granted a shotgun licence (or have access to land / rough shooting etc). A lot of clay shoots are commercial or semi-commercial enterprises depending on 'passing trade'. Nor is living in a tower block a bar but a 'patchy record' doesn't help nor does mental instability.

To use American parlance a shotgun licence is a 'shall issue' document whereas a firearms certificate is a 'may issue'. If you look at the law the chief constable may issue a firearms certificate if he's satisfied the applicant has a good reason to have firearms and will not be a danger. He shall issue a shotgun licence unless there's a legally valid reason not to.

In effect a shotgun licence is a right whereas an FAC is a privilege although a refusal of either can be appealed to a magistrate.

Back in my shooting days there was a chief constable, Essex if memory serves, who for a period, refused almost all FAC applications because he didn't approve of private citizens having guns which isn't a valid reason for refusal. The stated reason for refusal was always 'insufficient reason'. It took a threat of contempt proceedings from a pissed off judge or magistrate to put a stop to his patently unlawful nonsense.

[Siegfried Shrink]

That is a better explanation of the legal position; my point was more to show the Bill of Rights was in fact supported in current law and practice in this respect.

I think when I was a teenager and rough shooting in the local landscape I got a shotgun licence from the local Post Office for 5 bob. None of this secure storage stuff then and the only thing between me and a box of Hymax no.6 shot was the amount of money needed, around £5 possibly and not an easy sum to aquire.

[longdog]

That is a better explanation of the legal position; my point was more to show the Bill of Rights was in fact supported in current law and practice in this respect.

Indeed... If you want to own a genuine antique firearm of the era there's no restriction. Crossbows can only be sold to over 18s but are otherwise unrestricted and there's no laws at all (other than the usual offensive weapons rules) on longbows, recurves or compounds etc.

So yeah... You still have the right to own any arms of the period.

[SteveUK]

£27,000 of complete and utter PLD success fail (!! 1!!)

I feel another bankruptcy shortly being added to their trophy cabinet.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Can't read the picture apart from Notice of enforcement. but I'm guessing council tax.
If he has managed to evade it since 2011 i suggest he keeps on what he is doing as it seems to be working. Or running away to sea might be a good plan. Anything but whatever idiot advice he gets from PLD.

[SteveUK]

He'll be fine, his strawman can pick up the tab..

[rosy]

It's for child maintenance plus court costs - he's objecting to a whole 11% of his wages going to support his child(ren).

[longdog]

I spend a higher percentage of my income than that on my dogs.

Oh well.... Just as long as he's 'acting in honour'