The comedy court of Common Law

[ArthurWankspittle]

My Dad was drunk and registered a name for me.....

I've met someone whose official real name is a mispelling of what was intended for the same reason, allegedly.

[grixit]

I knew someone who had a common name with several different spellings. She was in her mid 20s when she discovered that the spelling she'd been using all her life was not the one on her birth certificate.

[Gregg]

Gregg is more commonly spelled "Greg" in the US, and when I have to clarify the spelling on something where it might matter, I have always said "G-r-e-g-g, Mum spelled it wrong once and no one's spelled it right since".

[hucknallred]

Gregg is more commonly spelled "Greg" in the US, and when I have to clarify the spelling on something where it might matter, I have always said "G-r-e-g-g, Mum spelled it wrong once and no one's spelled it right since".

Try being called Craig. Amazing how many people thing it's Greg, but bastardize the spelling. Some examples over the years; Graig (verry common), Crag, Criag, Craige, Griag and my favourite Criage.

[grixit]

That kind of treatment would've made me Cringe.

[Gregg]

The Graig one I have seen before, there was a famous baseball player in the USA named Graig Nettles in the 70s.

[noblepa]

When my dad was born in 1917, my grandmother wanted to name him Don Frederick Noble. My grandfather didn't like that name at all, so he told the nurse to put simply Frederick Noble on the birth certificate.

Back then, birth certificates were not required as often as they are today. He went to school, got a driver's license and all that, never being asked for his BC.

He grew up and his family and friends all called him Don. He didn't find out his real name until Dec. 8, 1941, when he took his BC to the Navy recruiting office and finally saw the real name.

My grandfather never said a word to anyone, all those years. I never heard what my grandmother said when she found out.

BTW, I often have people spell my name NOBEL, even after I have spelled it to them. Noble is a somewhat common english word and the Nobel prize is in the news every year, so people should know the difference. I just tell them that I'm no prize.

[longdog]

BTW, I often have people spell my name NOBEL, even after I have spelled it to them.

Same here...

"Jury... Spelt J.U.R.Y"

"D.U...."

"No... J.U.R.Y"

"D.R.U..."

"NO!!!! J!!!!! J!!!!!"

"D.J..."

"Fuck it! Put Smith."

[Tevildo]

I just have to put up with around a 40/40/15/5 distribution of Bennet, Bennett, Benet, and Benett.

[grixit]

When my dad was born in 1917, my grandmother wanted to name him Don Frederick Noble. My grandfather didn't like that name at all, so he told the nurse to put simply Frederick Noble on the birth certificate.

Back then, birth certificates were not required as often as they are today. He went to school, got a driver's license and all that, never being asked for his BC.

He grew up and his family and friends all called him Don. He didn't find out his real name until Dec. 8, 1941, when he took his BC to the Navy recruiting office and finally saw the real name.

My grandfather never said a word to anyone, all those years. I never heard what my grandmother said when she found out.

BTW, I often have people spell my name NOBEL, even after I have spelled it to them. Noble is a somewhat common english word and the Nobel prize is in the news every year, so people should know the difference. I just tell them that I'm no prize.

But they're pronounced differently.

[noblepa]

When my dad was born in 1917, my grandmother wanted to name him Don Frederick Noble. My grandfather didn't like that name at all, so he told the nurse to put simply Frederick Noble on the birth certificate.

Back then, birth certificates were not required as often as they are today. He went to school, got a driver's license and all that, never being asked for his BC.

He grew up and his family and friends all called him Don. He didn't find out his real name until Dec. 8, 1941, when he took his BC to the Navy recruiting office and finally saw the real name.

My grandfather never said a word to anyone, all those years. I never heard what my grandmother said when she found out.

BTW, I often have people spell my name NOBEL, even after I have spelled it to them. Noble is a somewhat common english word and the Nobel prize is in the news every year, so people should know the difference. I just tell them that I'm no prize.

But they're pronounced differently.

You're right. They're not homonyms. That's what makes it so frustrating.

[TheHallouminati]

Here's 'Ms Tracksuit', Sheila Sudlow, doing an urgent clarion call to all people under common law.

She needs 250 testimonies by that evening (Nov 2nd) - no small task.

Wonder if she's had her £25,000 compo from each of the social workers etc who were found guilty in the 8th Common Law Court hearing last July?

Interestingly she's from Wigan, very near to the Hindley Labour Club no doubt.

https://www.facebook.com/commonlawchild ... zk1ODAxMg/

[Siegfried Shrink]

Surely no individual can claim to be any more than "I, the person"?

I'd like to register my complete lack of interest in being included in 'Them, the people' so they have to say "We, the people other than Siegfried Shrink' and the names of everyone else who does not wish to be included.

Possibly the slogan could be 'We, the people but not all the other people'. This would be a lot more accurate.

[SteveUK]

List of all those named and shamed ignoring the crackpots.

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/hall-of-shame/

[Siegfried Shrink]

A hall of fame I'd be glad to join. Why don't they have a list of all who have bowed to their will?

Oh, wait, I think I know................

[AnOwlCalledSage]

List of all those named and shamed ignoring the crackpots.

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/hall-of-shame/

Except the SCRA lawyers haven't ignored the crackpots. I smell a referral to police and criminal charges coming their way!

[SteveUK]

Poor old Sheriff Kinloch's shaming:

week ago

Name: Sheriff Kinloch

Court: Livingston Sheriff Court

Date: 4th April 2018

It was not acceptable for Sheriff Kinloch to state that he had jurisdiction and as the defendant had questioned this, it must be established.

Sheriff Kinlock had failed to act on equitable grounds and had acted with bias:

a) Sheriff Kinlock ignored the fact that no valid contract existed between the parties.

b) Sheriff Kinlock refused to recuse himself when asked to do so, the defendant confirmed that there was a clear bias towards the pursuer, that the Sheriff could not be trusted and that he was protecting the vested interests of the pursuer. This was further highlighted when the Sheriff then threatened to find the defendant in contempt of court, despite the fact that this was a civil hearing.

c) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the common law birth certificate, a lawful document establishing the defendants standing under common law jurisdiction.

d) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the ownership certificate for the legal entity, a lawful document confirming that the court had no authority over it, jurisdiction or contract.

e) Sheriff Kinlock failed to accept the lawful ownership and sale document for the defendants property and the fact that it was now under common law jurisdiction.

f) In refusing to accept the lawful documents issued by the Common Law Court, Sheriff Kinloch has departed from the rule of law.

g) The actions of Sheriff Kinloch have established that he has failed to act reasonably in the circumstances.

h) The Sheriff announced in open court that the defendant was not there, he had disappeared, this was not the case as he was there as a man and the representative and owner of the legal fiction.

I) The flesh and blood living man is entitled to lead his own defence of choice.

j) The court in doing so prevented the defendant from lodging a lawful defence by short cutting the process and awarding everything to the pursuer.

k) The behaviour of Sheriff Kinloch confirms Prima Facia evidence of bias against the defendant and against the Public Interest.

l) As the facts have been left out of the court record, this confirms Prima Facie evidence of corruption.

m) In relation to this case, two separate sheriffs (Edington and Kinloch) have acted in unison.

n) The court gerrymandered interlocutors to protect the Sheriffs, the court and to protect vested interests, in doing so the court has denied the defendant his inalienable rights as a flesh and blood man and the owner of the legal fiction, in order to side with the pursuer.



SHERIFF EDINGTON AND KINLOCH HAVE ACTED IN DISHONOUR AND POTENTIALLY CRIMINALLY as they have acted with a straight bias.

The Sheriffs and court have to be equitable at all times, it wasn’t equitable because the Sheriffs denied the defendant an opportunity of choosing his own lawful defence. A FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ANY LAWFUL COURT.



What do you think of Sheriff Kinloch’s behaviour?

What do you think of the statutory courts?

[longdog]

I do love the way these loons think a judge has to recuse him or herself if they're not going to accept the loon's pseudolegal gobbledegook.

"The Sheriff announced in open court that the defendant was not there, he had disappeared, this was not the case as he was there as a man and the representative and owner of the legal fiction."

I can see it now...

"Are you Hamish McNutter?"

"No. I am not the fictitious person I am the agent acting for Hamish of the family McNutter"

"So you're not Hamish McNutter?"

"Hamish McNutter is a legal fiction and I am trustee over his legal fiction"

"Is that a yes or a no?"

"I am the representative of the admiralty salvage of the fictitious entity of the not living Ceste Que Vie entity which..."

"I'll take that as a no. In the absence of the respondent I find for the appellant on all points"

"BUT I HAVEN'T PRESENTED MY COMMON LAW DOCUMENTS WHICH PROVE..."

"Next case if you please".

[Siegfried Shrink]

Sheriff Kinloch sounds to be an able and effective Judge unless you happen to be from the planet Sproul and the statutory courts are pretty much the only ones that are valid (Don't forget we still have a few medieaval ceremonial courts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Piepowders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_the_Pyx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_leet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_court


All rather more real then the comedy CLC

[Burnaby49]

Almost four years ago I dedicated the title of a discussion to the concept that you can simultaneously be physically present, and not be physically present, in a courtroom. Physical attendance and legal attendance being, under sovereign law, separate concepts.

Dr. Leo Fung - The Porisyite who wasn't there

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 50&t=10477

Dr. Fung is currently heading for trial In Vancouver for tax evasion. Another foot soldier in the army of Poriskyites the crown has been forced to deal with. He has had one prior hearing which made it to Canlii.

R. v. Fung, 2011 BCPC 326

At least it appears to be him. He denied at the hearing that he was actually at the hearing and he should know best if he was there or not. This was an application by the Crown to continue to retain documents seized under a search warrant. Dr. Fung was unfortunately unable to attend to argue against cntinuing the seizure so he sent himself in his place to represent him.

[1] THE COURT: I am dealing here with an application. Notice was given to Leo Fung, who is a taxpayer according to the documents, and that is the only person whom I want to talk to.

[2] LEO FUNG (probably): But there - -

[3] THE COURT: Leo Fung - - let me finish. Leo Fung has filed an affidavit saying he will consent to the order if the investigator proves and establishes a variety of issues that are completely unrelated. The question I have to decide is, "Do I detain these materials that were seized for a further period of time?"

[4] So the affidavit of Leo Fung can go into the court file, but I rule it irrelevant to this application. At this point in time, the only material I have in front of me is the application by the Crown and the affidavit of the investigator, Ms. Tsang.

[5] No one is stepping forward as the taxpayer to deal with this application - - the person who has been given notice.

[6] Accordingly, I am of the view that the materials from the Crown are in order. The affidavit establishes that a further period of detention is appropriate and necessary to continue the investigation, and I am going to grant the order sought by the Crown.

[7] I will give everyone in the courtroom the opportunity, in the form of everyone who is a party to this action, i.e. Leo Fung, the taxpayer, because that is the only person whom I am interested in, one last opportunity to make submissions on the application, but not submissions on his legal status as a person versus a taxpayer.

[8] If Leo Fung the taxpayer is in the courtroom, he can make submissions.

[9] LEO FUNG: I'm not here to repute the taxpayer's material, I'm here just to claim my status as a private person.

[10] THE COURT: I am not here - - I am not here, again - -

[11] LEO FUNG: So that the private property - -

[12] THE COURT: Again, I am not here to deal with that issue. I am only here to deal with the taxpayer and his relationship with - -

[13] LEO FUNG: What - -

[14] THE COURT: - - the taxation - -

[15] LEO FUNG: What venue
-
[16] THE COURT: - - office.

[17] LEO FUNG: What venue would be the appropriate venue?

[18] THE COURT: I have no idea. Go speak to a lawyer, sir. It is not my job to give you legal advice.

[19] LEO FUNG: Yes, I understand that.

[20] THE COURT: Okay, so - -

[21] LEO FUNG: A venue
-
[22] THE COURT: - - I don't know, but - -

[23] LEO FUNG: -- it's unfair to --

[24] THE COURT: - - it is certainly not this venue because it is of no interest of me. The only person that I want to talk to is the taxpayer.

[25] LEO FUNG: Well - -

[26] THE COURT: The order is granted. November 10th, that is the correct date.

[27] Do you need me to sign one or more of these documents?

[28] MR. MENELEY: Your Honour, I have two available, and if Mr. Fung provides me with a third I have three.

[29] THE COURT: One, two. There you go.

[30] MR. MENELEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

[31] THE COURT: All right, Dr. Fung, if you want to sort out what your legal status is, I suggest you go speak to a lawyer for some advice as to where to go to obtain some determination on that. In the meantime, I expect that anyone who deals with this file will be dealing only with the taxpayer. If you do not want to be the taxpayer, you might have a problem.

[32] All right.

[33] MR. MENELEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

[34] THE COURT: Thank you.

[35] This goes back in the file, as well.

[36] THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.