The comedy court of Common Law

[SteveUK]

Hers an absolute gem. This idiot has got evicted from a property he wasn't even in lol

I guess he walked out without giving notice, later found out he'd been evicted and now suckered with the back rent.

This is truly is a first, and a hell of a success!!! 1!!!

• Hey guys. Quick queary, i had a housing association flat (South Wight Housing, Isle of Wight), i walked out, leaving the property on 15/06/2005. The association served me wiv eviction papers, expiring 08/2005. They had to go to court to seek possesion and finally got it in 02/2006, they said i had to pay the rent and court costs upto and including 02/2006, even tho id moved out 06/2005 and the eviction noticed expired that August. Can they charge me from the August til the following February, even though id moved out before the expiry of the eviction?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Is the point moot because the claim is now statute barred? I confess I don't know.

Or is this just a very old question?

[longdog]

Well he says...

They had to go to court to seek possesion and finally got it in 02/2006, they said i had to pay the rent and court costs upto and including 02/2006

Assuming the 'they' in 'they said' means a court order then the debt is enforceable and will never be statute barred.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I wonder why the Avenging Sword of the Isle of Wight is after him now? As a possible case I'd rank him in the chewing gum trodden into the pavement class of targets, compared to what must be fresher and jucier cases.

[TheHallouminati]

JimUk1 wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:13 pm
The Fisher-Price court is asking people to share this, so naturally I am-

. NEWSFLASH ! due to popular demand the common law court will be running a training session for the people on the Saturday 27th October time to be confirmed for the afternoon. if anyone is interested in becoming an enforcer who stand under common law jurisdiction. you will also be sworn in at the court and necessary paperwork drawn up a few days later. this is so important for you to attend if you want a lawful remedy when the legal system is letting you down. its for the people run by the people.The training will also focus on running a common law court in your own area with paper work supported by the common law court.(you need about 25 people to run a lawful court with 12 members of the public to volunteer as a jury) so spread the word especially to all mums suffering that have had children taken unlawfully by social workers. this is in addition to the common law court hearing on the 28th October 2018 at 12pm until 7.30pm same venue. watch this space for the time to be announced soon. PLEASE SHARE this post thankyou

Offering training now, oh goody!

Does anyone know how the training session for CLC 'enforcers' went on Saturday at the Hindley Labour Club, Wigan? Also was anyone found guilty at the CLC on Sunday? There's been a news black-out from the MSM.

[exiledscouser]

Does anyone know how the training session for CLC 'enforcers' went on Saturday at the Hindley Labour Club, Wigan? Also was anyone found guilty at the CLC on Sunday? There's been a news black-out from the MSM.

It has been a bit quiet, no sign of Tracy OTF Tracksuit or other usual suspects.

But, some good news, Ken OTF Thompson, Britain's finest film maker was there;

Well I can tell you these common law courts are a real eye opener. 3 hearings today and all three returned guilty verdicts. All 3 cases to the court had clear merits and presented well.
2 cases of property theft due to curuption & deception of paperwork
1 major test case (75) of children being stolen by local authorities

Phuck me, keeping up the 100% conviction rate - go CLC go! Snaresbrook Crown Court, please take note!

All does not go unchallenged in our movie mogul's FB world tho. Wendy calls him out, I've numbered her questions;

1. How many cases so far have had their cases over turned because of common law courts involvement? 2. Anyone had any training with child welfare involved with this? 3. Any experts attending with regards to the welfare of the children? 4. What are you expecting to achieve?

Perhaps I can have a stab at that for Wendy;

1. None
2. None
3. None
4. That's the million-dollar question isn't it. What can an impotent bunch of time-wasters achieve by wallowing in and reinforcing one-another's prejudices and fantasies? Outcomes which will simply be laughed at, each and every time?

Ken isn't for giving out answers, not properly anyway;

The CEO of the each of the 3 said authority's have now been found gulity, of various offences under common law common law is higher the statute law (I am sure you will know that) the next process us enforcement. Now if you look the time to attend these common law carts you will see and comprehend how the operate rather just ranting what you belive Is the situation. Or start doing some dudiligence of your own

Common Law Carts?


Ken continues in a somewhat Kafkaesque tone;

I'm not at liberty to say I'm not in charge of the common law court I was just there to witness and film the two courts in action

So at some point in the future we can expect to see some hilarious but poorly-shot footage of the CLC in action. But given that Ken rarely finishes what he starts I don't hold out too much hope. I wonder if by filming he breaches Section 41 of the 1925 Criminal Justice Act?

Probably not as the court has to be a real one. He concludes and I'm not sure which of Wendy's 4 questions he was turning his intellect to here, but he says;

No you don't sorry I'm not giving you the answer. I.have no idea who you are you could be a troll. Someone working for the said authority so you take care Wendy I carnt be arsed to talk to you any more

Teddy well out of pram and that's the end of that.

So, despite woeful and unusually sparse reporting we do know that;

* the CLC sat
* that they pondered the case
* against the always-absentee defendant who is not even allowed representation
* they brought in guilty verdicts against all those accused
* unanimously
* they then all retreated to the nearest Weatherspoons in self-congratulatory mood, justice having been served.

Nothing will ever come of their verdicts, no punishment levied, no sentence carried out, no edict enforced.

But as always they provide a rich seam of unintended mirth - at their own expense.

[longdog]

So, despite woeful and unusually sparse reporting we do know that;

* the CLC sat
* that they pondered the case
* against the always-absentee defendant who is not even allowed representation
* they brought in guilty verdicts against all those accused
* unanimously
* they then all retreated to the nearest Weatherspoons in self-congratulatory mood, justice having been served.

You forgot...

* The verdict and/or means of enforcement are in some way secret and the accused guilty must not under any circumstances get wind of it.

No you don't sorry I'm not giving you the answer. I.have no idea who you are you could be a troll. Someone working for the said authority so you take care Wendy I carnt be arsed to talk to you any more

Imagine how they'd scream if a police officer came to their door and told them they were under arrest as they have been found guilty of an unspecified offence and been received an unspecified sentence.

[Burnaby49]

I must strongly disagree with the opinions of the posters in this discussion who state or imply that the Common Law Court is completely useless. I have found it of great value in a posting I just did regarding an analysis of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal has vastly more legitimate credentials and respectability than the CLC. Its avowed high-minded goal isn't selfish personal gain but to end war forever and it has world-wide approval from the peace movement. But, at heart, it's a completely fake court absolutely no different than the CLC. This was the 'court' that found President Bush and Tony Blair guilty of genocide and war crimes and punished them to the maximum extent possible under its regulating Charter. Their punishment? The court called them bad, bad boys and wrote their names in the naughty boy's ledger. Since these are punishments equally within the powers of the CLC I thought, in evaluating the Tribunal's real legitimate authority, that the CLC would make a good comparison. I also made reference to The Burnaby49 Beer Buddies' Boozerama Court as another comparison. We've been doing some really good work recently issuing court judgments banning the sale of Molson's and Labatts products world-wide. We're just having a bit of difficulty enforcing our judgments. We're looking to the CLC to show us the way past that roadblock.

So back to the question that generated Belanger's squabble with judge Webre and this analysis. Is Webre actually a judge? It depends on how you define being a judge. The UK forum has a discussion on the British Common Law courts. A court established by a bunch of halfwits who got together and concluded that, if they sat down together at the same place at the same time and pretended really hard to be a real court then somehow, by magic, they became a real court and could issue real court judgments on, apparently, any issue. The Common Law Court was willing to make a decision in their favour on anything that was bothering them if they coughed up a nominal court and document fee. Issues like eliminating their arrears of counsel taxes or other debts, canceling criminal charges, ordering authorities to return apprehended children. Great stuff until the victorious plaintiffs in the Common Law Court cough, cough trials triumphantly took copies of the decisions to the losers and ordered them to obey the court's orders. Surprisingly, instead of getting compliance, they were invariably told to fuck off. Social services kept their children, banks continued with foreclosures, and the counsel still demanded their taxes.

This is almost an exact analogy to the Tribunal. It went busily about its business of pretending to hold fair unbiased trials of war criminals and, like the Common Law Court, spewed out judgments that had absolutely no legal power or effect because the Tribunal has no power whatever to enforce its judgments. Foreseeing this the Tribunal pretended that it had enforcement power by limiting the penalty in its judgments to trivial issues that it could do itself. But if you cut through all the pretentious high-minded pontificating about the Tribunal's noble goal of ending war forever this is effectively no different than the self-interested and equally worthless judgments of the Common Law Court.

Therefore, if you accept the Tribunal as a real court with real judges then you also have to accept the Common Law Court as a real court with real judges. Taking this a further step you'd also have to accept Burnaby49's Beer Buddies' Boozerama sessions as a real court since I can issue totally worthless unenforceable judgments just as good as those of the Tribunal or the Common Law Court. It's open season, anything you want to make up is a real court! So, is Alfred Lambremont Webre a real judge? On the basis of the parameters I've set in this analysis the answer has to be yes as long as Burnaby49 is also recognized as a real judge. And let's not forget the judges of the pie eating contest at the Lafayette, Louisiana County fair (an event I actually attended). They qualify too. It's like being a Kentucky Colonel. Real, legitimate military designations is desired but not required.

But, if you go one step further, one very small step, up to Ninja's Kitchen Table Court with His Honour Judge Gavel presiding and you consider this to be the minimal level of court authority that can be considered legitimate, a court with with judgments accepted by the parties at trial, then neither the Tribunal or the Burnaby's Boozerama make the cut. The difference from our courts? As I explained in a prior post all of the parties affected by the Kitchen Table Court's decisions (Ninja and his brother) accepted it's jurisdiction and both agreed to abide by Judge Gavel's decisions. The Tribunal has as much ability to meet these absolutely minimum standards as does my court and the nitwits at the Common Law Court. So, as Belanger rightly said, Webre can fairly claim to be a judge at a beauty pageant but not a judge in an actual real court.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p270372

[Tevildo]

The CEO of the each of the 3 said authority's have now been found gulity, of various offences under common law common law is higher the statute law (I am sure you will know that) the next process us enforcement. Now if you look the time to attend these common law carts you will see and comprehend how the operate rather just ranting what you belive Is the situation. Or start doing some dudiligence of your own

But as always they provide a rich seam of unintended mirth - at their own expense.

I like "dudiligence". I've seen "persay" plenty of times (in more rational contexts) and feel it may be on the way to lexicographic legitimacy, but this is a new departure for me. (Note also that he's managed "comprehend" but not "believe". A study of the electronic aids he employs, and their custom dictionaries, might be productive.)

[aesmith]

On Crabbies council tax group, looks like Mr Sproul isn't the only one getting his collar felt ..

Robert White shared Mack Kenny's live video.
All you CLC people listen to this video, John Smith Common Law Court has been arrested. Well done to everyone for turning up to support Robert Sproul today, once again it has been adjourned. Everyone should be very angry about this, but please stay calm we will get through in the end.

Robert White
Hopefully everyone will actually listen to what Rob says here, this is very serious and important to know what has happened today.

(Good luck with that one by the way)

Domes Foru
Wee update, John Smith was arrested outside Roberts case in paisley under section 38 breach o the peace, no word back from Robert as yet, he said earlier that the courts were playing about again with the disclosure, and trying to get him to pick it up from the police station? Will update when I hear more folk

[Siegfried Shrink]

It can be quite hard to predict the future where legal matters are concerned.

Not with these folk.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Wee update, John Smith was arrested outside Roberts case in paisley under section 38 breach o the peace, no word back from Robert as yet, he said earlier that the courts were playing about again with the disclosure, and trying to get him to pick it up from the police station? Will update when I hear more folk

Or "normal procedure" IIRC. Unless he's doing a Neelu and asking for copies of orders from the Queen, Jesuit internal memos, Soros bank transfers etc.

[longdog]

What's the problem? All HHJ Smith J needs to do is declare his arrest unlawful, Section 38 invalid and fine the Police one billion squillion fabadabadillion pounds for intruding on his common law rights.

If John Smith can't even use his own play-court to get off criminal charges it doesn't say much for its powers.

[mufc1959]

It seems there was an 'incident' at the Common Law Enforcement Training Session at the weekend. A woman entered the venue, whose outfit caused some alarm. I'm assuming she was wearing a hijab or some other Islamic garb. Although, having said that, the CLCers are such a mob of losers that maybe she was wearing sexy lingerie - a sight most of them are unlikely ever to have seen outside the pages of a magazine or nefarious corners of the internet.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall ...

[mufc1959]

And, of course, there's the delusion that they're important enough to be open to "attack from outside sources".

[Burnaby49]

And, of course, there's the delusion that they're important enough to be open to "attack from outside sources".

You're taking this far too lightly. They, at least, have a realistic assessment of the dangers they face from government goon squads as a result of their valiant efforts to overthrow totalitarianism;

[exiledscouser]

It seems there was an 'incident' at the Common Law Enforcement Training Session at the weekend. A woman entered the venue, whose outfit caused some alarm. I'm assuming she was wearing a hijab or some other Islamic garb. Although, having said that, the CLCers are such a mob of losers that maybe she was wearing sexy lingerie - a sight most of them are unlikely ever to have seen outside the pages of a magazine or nefarious corners of the internet.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall ...

It’s not explicitly Islamic garb, it could easily be the startling combo of heavily-framed bottle-bottom NHS glasses, Green Flash trainers, a toothy gurn, mangled Rochdale accent and a purple velour shell-suit from Home Bargains. I’d be off out through the fire exit sweating like a Geordie in a maths exam.

[Siegfried Shrink]

How about a police uniform? Hard to tell apart and could be threatening to some?

If I could afford the cash I'd send them a policewoman strippagram.

[Chaos]

It seems there was an 'incident' at the Common Law Enforcement Training Session at the weekend. A woman entered the venue, whose outfit caused some alarm. I'm assuming she was wearing a hijab or some other Islamic garb. Although, having said that, the CLCers are such a mob of losers that maybe she was wearing sexy lingerie - a sight most of them are unlikely ever to have seen outside the pages of a magazine or nefarious corners of the internet.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall ...

I'll put 500Re on lingerie

[notorial dissent]

So Smith got done for Section 38 and the peanut gallery is all upset and SURPRISED/shocked about it. Does that have to do with threatening/interfering with a court or official, or is it something else altogether? Normally you'd think they couldn't possibly that dumb, but they really are, proof being that they are involved in this twaddle to begin with.

I have to say that considering this crowd that it could have been just about anything considering how parochail and closed off this crowd is from the rest of the universe. They glory and revel in their insularity and ignorance and pretended knowledge.