Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[exiledscouser]

Here’s a post about a sovereign clown from Yorkshire who is taking on the judiciary in Singapore - and guess who is winning?

Ben Glynn decided that although living and working in Singapore, none of its many strictly enforced rules, laws and regulations applied to him. Or so he thought. He refused to wear a mask on the underground which bought him a court appearance. Even at the court he again refused to wear one. Their country, their rules I’d say but Glynn knows best.

Actions have consequences however and he was, initially at least on bail awaiting a hearing, passport confiscated until then.

Glynn urged the judge to return his passport so that he could travel home to Britain to see his wife and children.

'They've stolen my passport, my God-given right to travel,' he said.

Obviously a document issued and sanctioned by the Almighty himself. The self-pitying whining continued;

'I can't believe this has been going on since the 8th of May,' Glynn said, according to friends.

'It's so straightforward it's so clear that this sham of a case should be dropped.'

He added: 'I'm disgusted with how the Singapore judicial system has treated me.'

At this point a woman got up in the public gallery to clap and cheer.

Errr that sort of thing might be expected or even indulged in the UK but not out there and as a consequence it seems our brave Sovrn lost his liberty;

Glynn has been in custody since July 19 after his £2,700 bail was revoked by the judge.

At the start of proceedings, the defendant introduced Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman as his legal representative.

Mr Rahman has also acted as Glynn's bailor, and was turned away from the court previously for inappropriate attire.

Oh no, not another Common Law (read amateur) Lawyer with no dress sense? That’ll sort things! Back off Singapore!

District Judge Eddy Tham blocked Mr Rahman from representing Glynn because he was not legally qualified.

Oh. That went well. We could do with a few judges over here with this no nonsense attitude. Lookin at you EWE!

Anyway this brave non-advocate had a curious claim to make;

Mr Rahman told the judge that he was an 'ambassador-at-large and advocate of Kingdom Filipina Hacienda' and had every right to defend his 'sovereign compatriot.'

Judge Tham replied that this was 'not the position' of Singaporean law.

Prosecutor Mr Koh went on to argue that Glynn needed to be reviewed by psychiatrists because there is evidence he is not of 'sound mind.'

As is often the case there is a thin line between holding sovereign citizen beliefs and having a spell on a mental health ward.

“(the) Prosecution has received a letter from the accused's family and friends or persons purporting to be his family and friends and in this letter, the persons report a marked change of behaviour in the accused's person that was noticeable especially after the COVID restrictions set in,' Mr Koh said, according to CNA.

The article concludes with further self-entitled blathering;

The prosecutor said that in light of this new information, as well as Glynn's behaviour in court, it would not be 'prudent' to continue to trial without a medical report.

Glynn interrupted the lawyer, saying: 'The certificate of vaccine regulations do not apply to the living man and I'm well aware of this fact.

'Why have the mask regulations been dropped all over America and Europe? Because they are unconstitutional. I don't get my information from the Straits Times.'

However, Judge Tham agreed with Mr Koh and ordered Glynn to be remanded to the Institute of Mental Health until August 19.

Before he was led to the cells, Glynn called out: 'Good luck getting into the Book of Life, Mr Koh. How can you say Singapore is a safe country. Police who hunt me down like a pack of wild animals. This is not justice. This is disgusting.'

Glynn had been working for the Singaporean branch of a British recruitment company since January 2017.

Weeks before he was due to return to the UK for a new job, he was filmed without a mask on a subway near Raffles Place, the financial district of Singapore, on May 7.

In Singapore it is mandatory to wear a mask when residents leave their homes, with very few exceptions.

The clip was widely shared on social media and detectives soon tracked Glynn down.

[mufc1959]

However, Judge Tham agreed with Mr Koh and ordered Glynn to be remanded to the Institute of Mental Health until August 19.

That's the way to do it! Treat them like the nutters they are.

[mufc1959]

I finished reading the decision. I've had vast experience reading legal decisions, including many on very complex income tax issues, and it's my conclusion this this one is almost incomprehensible sludge. The judge seems to be straining to make it as opaque as possible. it's a simple mortgage issue but that's largely hidden in legal gibberish.

That's how Scottish judgements tend to be written. The England & Wales and Northern Ireland judiciary appear to have moved with the times and now write judgements that are relatively comprehensible to the lay person (unless there are very complex legal issues - but even then, the background facts are generally set out clearly). But in Scotland they still use this archaic language that harks back to the 18th century.

[Spudandros]

I finished reading the decision. I've had vast experience reading legal decisions, including many on very complex income tax issues, and it's my conclusion this this one is almost incomprehensible sludge. The judge seems to be straining to make it as opaque as possible. it's a simple mortgage issue but that's largely hidden in legal gibberish.

Judge is straining to ensure he complies with all the unique legal terms required by a legal system that is largely NOT based on common law or Magna Carta. Scots Law is a completely different beast not only with its own particular legal principles but its own terms for them, some of which have no English common law equivalent. It's a hybrid of continental law, post-1801 common law judgements, some aspects of clan law. It's this reason that all Parliamentary bills need to be submitted twice if they are UK wide bills, once for Scotland to ensure it complies with its particular laws and once for the rest of the UK.

As an aside - There is no right to trial by jury as Magna Carta has no application in Scots Law. That decision rests with the Procurator Fiscal - something FMOL and Art61 types in Scotland can't get their head around. It's application in Scotland was only heard once at a serious level in a case around 1903 involving a dispute between mussel gatherers on the shore of Port Glasgow and the Crown, which owned all shore land in Scotland at that time. The mussel gatherers sought to introduce provisions in Magna Carta that gave mussel gatherers in London similar rights to those being sought in Port Glasgow. It was dismissed with a curt "This is a Scottish law matter. Magna Carta has no application in Scottish Law". It was then appealed to the Court of Session on the basis this was wrong and the Act of Union 1707 brought it in, but the judgement was upheld. It then went down south to the House of Lords for appeal and again it was upheld. Magna Carta has no application in Scottish Law.


This is an application to set aside a previous judgement in favour of the Defender and impose an injunction on them to prevent further enforcement. There is a dispute over whether or not the calling up document was served in person - a legal requirement in Scotland post judgement but prior to enforcement.

[longdog]

As an aside - There is no right to trial by jury as Magna Carta has no application in Scots Law.

To be pedantic there's no right to trial by jury anywhere in the UK if all you are relying on is Magna Carta. The 1297 version says...

No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or
free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send
against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

That "...or by the law of the land" shifts the right to trial by jury firmly into the realm of whatever statute laws says.

[TheRambler]

Judge is straining to ensure he complies with all the unique legal terms required by a legal system that is largely NOT based on common law or Magna Carta. Scots Law is a completely different beast not only with its own particular legal principles but its own terms for them, some of which have no English common law equivalent. It's a hybrid of continental law, post-1801 common law judgements, some aspects of clan law. It's this reason that all Parliamentary bills need to be submitted twice if they are UK wide bills, once for Scotland to ensure it complies with its particular laws and once for the rest of the UK.

Thank you for that explanation Spudandros, I’m a Scot by descent, was educated in Scotland and at various times returned to work there. I was always aware that Scots Law had significant differences from that in England but hadn’t realised how fundamental they were.

TheRambler

[mufc1959]

EDF's General Counsel is crushing it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Ha ha!

She's actually used a CLC pile of garbage.

[longdog]

I can never work out where they are going with their adherence to, or rebuttal of (often both) the "presumptions" or "maxims" of law other than some piss weak straw man fallacy.

It seems to work something along the lines of "Some bloke once wrote something about the law which I agree / don't agree with therefore I don't have to pay my bills". Or am I missing something?

[wserra]

It seems to work something along the lines of "Some bloke once wrote something about the law which I agree / don't agree with don't understand but will claim to mean that therefore I don't have to pay my bills". Or am I missing something?

As edited, not a thing.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I can never work out where they are going with their adherence to, or rebuttal of (often both) the "presumptions" or "maxims" of law other than some piss weak straw man fallacy.

It seems to work something along the lines of "Some bloke once wrote something about the law which I agree / don't agree with therefore I don't have to pay my bills". Or am I missing something?

Did a bit more looking up. It seems the "Twelve Presumptions" was originally from David E. Robinson, not our David "Pushing Up Daisies" Robinson.

Now I don't know if this was court ordered, but this is on his web page and it has to hurt!

REVISED: David Robinson is an Author and Journalist living in the mid-coast area of Maine. He is a Graduate and Alumni of the Brunswick Police Academy. He served as a JUROR seated on the Cumberland County, Maine, Grand Jury for the first four-month session of 2014. Publisher Robinson served 3 months of a 4-month sentence for Conspiracy to defraud the United States, at the FCI Berlin minimum security Satellite Camp in Berlin New Hampshire, as retaliation after he and a friend sued the IRS, unsuccessfully, for Unfair Trade Practices, under Title 15 of the US Code. +++ Maine Lawsuit Against The IRS: For Unfair Trade Practices (http://tinyurl.com/hm8gdls) +++ Failure to File & Conspiracy: United States vs. Messier & Robinson - No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH (http://tinyurl.com/gwdyaps) +++ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Maine / REPLY BRIEF OF ROBINSON (http://tinyurl.com/zyp9f3x) +++ Books by David E. Robinson (http://tinyurl.com/zrr9bxb)

[HardyW]

" ... served 3 months as retaliation after he took the IRS to court ..."

That does not seem like "court mandated" language does it?

More like "I took the IRS to court in 2016, and subsequently I was kidnapped and put in their unlawful prison (please see these links below even though they no longer work) so I am important, not just some random person on the internet".

[longdog]

The court filing against the IRS is impressively awful. I'll skip the preliminary drivel and go straight to the "Testimony" and "Basis of claim" <clears throat>

The IRS is a private debt collection agency....

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd... You've already lost the case after seven words and an acronym... Well done... Have a coconut.

[John Uskglass]

Sinead Quinn is having her day in court today - or would be if she'd turned up.

Ms Quinn has sent a strange letter to the court instead of actually turning up herself.

The court has heard that she returned the envelope containing the summons and claims she says she has no legal obligation in the matter.

“The woman Sinead does not accept,” her letter to court said.

The letter also included a fingerprint which the court assumed to be hers and says that it has been witnessed by two people, Paul and Sheila.

Live reports here:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/wes ... r-21301013

[hucknallred]

Sinead Quinn is having her day in court today - or would be if she'd turned up.

As it's a live case would it be wrong to say found guilty in her absence & a hefty fine?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

As it's a live case would it be wrong to say found guilty in her absence & a hefty fine?

The prosecutor has told our reporter in court that today's decision replaces and supersedes the £17,000 in unpaid fixed penalty notices that Miss Quinn racked up during the course of the pandemic.

The total she will have to pay now is £8,436.

The £17,000 accumulated civil fine was never going to stand. The trouble now for her is that by not paying the civil fine I think she now has a criminal record, but I could be wrong on that. It might take her not paying the court fine to get that.

[TheRambler]

Sinead Quinn is having her day in court today - or would be if she'd turned up.

As it's a live case would it be wrong to say found guilty in her absence & a hefty fine?

A fine of £8,436 + £2,246 cost and a surcharge of £190 would seem to indicate that you’re not wrong.

Let’s not dress up her non attendance as an act of principle, belief or anything else. It’s just another Fretard who has run out of road but hasn’t got sufficient spine to stand up and admit it. She will carry on whingeing and whining in public but in private will do nothing more. I know one who was convicted years ago but continues to tell people that he’s “still fighting it” when in fact he has done nothing of the sort. They continue to cherish their delusions in public.

TheRambler

[TheRambler]

The £17,000 accumulated civil fine was never going to stand. The trouble now for her is that by not paying the civil fine I think she now has a criminal record, but I could be wrong on that. It might take her not paying the court fine to get that.

All of a sudden Poindings and Warrant Sales don’t seem such a bad idea.

https://scottishlegal.com/article/blog ... nwarranted

TheRambler

[SpearGrass]

The court can't take account of the fixed penalty when imposing their fine. They have to comply with the Sentencing Guidelines, not be led by the nose by the DHSC. Legal adviser was clearly reading from the guideline as it's quoted.
She does not have a criminal record, though I don't suspect this isn't a notifiable offence so it wouldn't go on the Police National Computer. But if (unlikely scenario) she were to apply for something where these things matter, e.g. a job, insurance, she would have to disclose it until it's spent.
As for enforcement, it goes like this:
She doesn't pay in 28 days (that's not the law, just a prediction)
Further Steps notice, warning if she doesn't pay, nasty things will happen
Fines officer decides how to collect - probably a warrant of control in her case.
Bailiffs go to collect. They can't seize the tools of her trade. The debt will go up, as the bailiffs can claim their costs
If that fails, either County Court action, wtih an eye to her GoFundMe a/c, or a summons back to the magistrates' court.
When she doesn't attend, a warrant of arrest, bailiffs go to arrest her.
Court appearance, various options including imprisonment. This looks like quite a good case for imprisonment because she has all that GoFundMe cash, so an immediate term would probably result in her disgorging it and not going to prison, everyone happy.

[SpearGrass]

Sorry, typo, she DOES have a criminal record. Probably not recorded on national computer, but it will be recorded by the council (and Yorkshire Live).