Parliamentary Sovereignty

[fotheringsmirth]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ian2day]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

I've mentioned about parliament being a sovereign entity before.

[fotheringsmirth]

And said what?

[Ian2day]

And said what?

I can't remember. Try the search button. Athough saying that I wouldn't hold out any hope of all my posts being found. As some have a habit of vanishing...

[grannymoose]

True sovereignty comes from knowing divine law through the removal of the abilty to create a victim.
sovereignty is not man made law nor can a man claim to be sovereign without the supreme authority granting it.
Parlament hides behind this, like little children walking in lines with sweeping brushes pretending the road sweepers.

Judges and parlament know that the least we know about this the better to where it gives them the upperhand in controlling a human being into making them believe they are less worthy and beneath them., thus a human being loosing all rights and becoming confused as to what they are and what rights they truly have.
I would like to see parlament explain what true sovereignty is.

read about George Washington. He could not tell a lie. Notice they did not say he would not tell a lie. What is the difference? He couldn’t. he was sovereign.

also ever wondered why the Supreme Court cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the court building, it is because they know that to do that would mean they would not be a Supreme Court. They have been removing the Ten Commandments from State Houses and small courts left and right because they know where real power comes from.

[fotheringsmirth]

True sovereignty comes from knowing divine law through the removal of the abilty to create a victim.
sovereignty is not man made law nor can a man claim to be sovereign without the supreme authority granting it.
Parlament hides behind this, like little children walking in lines with sweeping brushes pretending the road sweepers.

Judges and parlament know that the least we know about this the better to where it gives them the upperhand in controlling a human being into making them believe they are less worthy and beneath them., thus a human being loosing all rights and becoming confused as to what they are and what rights they truly have.
I would like to see parlament explain what true sovereignty is.

read about George Washington. He could not tell a lie. Notice they did not say he would not tell a lie. What is the difference? He couldn’t. he was sovereign.

also ever wondered why the Supreme Court cannot remove the Ten Commandments from the court building, it is because they know that to do that would mean they would not be a Supreme Court. They have been removing the Ten Commandments from State Houses and small courts left and right because they know where real power comes from.

Nothing to do with UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is a legal doctrine in the United Kingdom which states that laws Parliament hands down can only be overturned by Parliament itself. Also, that any previous common law is overriden by the statute. It's not just an abstract concept, but one that anyone who knows anything about the law realises that it's how things are. It's pretty much the first thing you learn in any Public Law course and underrides all constitutional law in the UK. So for people to go around suggesting that individuals can declare themselves sovereign when in the UK it is Parliament alone that is sovereign, is obviously misguided.

[pleasuredome]

Parliamentry Sovereignty is a legal concept and within the constraints of the Laws of the Realm. it has nothing to do with a man declaring soveriegnty.

[john white]

you should read that wiki entry more carefully fotheringsmirth

History

The origins of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty are controversial. Some claim that in England it originated in the early 16th century, when the parliament asserted the supremacy of statute over the Church. Others argue that originated in the 17th and 18th centuries when Parliament asserted the right to name and depose a monarch. Another classic exposition was that of Albert Dicey, in his book Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885):

Parliament... has... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. Parliament is not bound by its predecessor.

This is in contrast with the de facto right an English jury has had since at least the trial of William Penn in 1670 to judge the law according to its conscience and if necessary return a verdict contrary to the law prescribed by parliament in what is known as a perverse verdict (see jury nullification). A similar right was established in Scots law after the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven in 1728 where the jury brought in a Not guilty verdict instead of finding the accused Proven or Not proven according to the law.

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

* Parliament can make law concerning anything.
* No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
* A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

Parliamentary supremacy is blamed by contemporary legal historians for the failure of English law to develop due process in the American sense (that is, a mechanism for protecting the human rights of individuals from being arbitrarily infringed by the government)

Now consider that in relation to the Lisbon Treaty

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear

Lisbon is immediately unlawful, Parliament has outstripped it's authority

The contract with the governed is broken, the deal is off

Parliamentary Sovereignty no longer applies, as Parliament itself is outside the law.

Therefore all human beings (men and women) have the absolute right to assert their sovereignty and resist tyranny by any and all means necessary

We are starting with the peaceful and non-violent and by God, lets pray that works

[fotheringsmirth]

you should read that wiki entry more carefully fotheringsmirth



Now consider that in relation to the Lisbon Treaty

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear

Lisbon is immediately unlawful, Parliament has outstripped it's authority

The contract with the governed is broken, the deal is off

Parliamentary Sovereignty no longer applies, as Parliament itself is outside the law.

Therefore all human beings (men and women) have the absolute right to assert their sovereignty and resist tyranny by any and all means necessary

We are starting with the peaceful and non-violent and by God, lets pray that works

Technically speaking, the EU doesn't 'bind' Parliament, but Parliament agrees to accept ECJ decisions, etc. The Lisbon Treaty is just that - a treaty, which is agreed upon by member states, so Parliament agrees to that as well. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't challenged because in future, Parliament could decide to not go along with EU legislation, rulings and treaties and face the costs of either a) penalties or b) removal from the Union. At the moment, however, Parliament agrees to be bound. There is a problem with the sovereignty of the member state, but it's not a negation of Parliamentary sovereignty and it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

[john white]

Technically speaking, the EU doesn't 'bind' Parliament, but Parliament agrees to accept ECJ decisions, etc. The Lisbon Treaty is just that - a treaty, which is agreed upon by member states, so Parliament agrees to that as well. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't challenged because in future, Parliament could decide to not go along with EU legislation, rulings and treaties and face the costs of either a) penalties or b) removal from the Union. At the moment, however, Parliament agrees to be bound. There is a problem with the sovereignty of the member state, but it's not a negation of Parliamentary sovereignty and it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

Lisbon might be called a "treaty" but we all know it is a constitution, and the only way out of the EU, if not done very soon, is with the total beggerment of the country: if that was even possible. In theory all soviet states could "opt" to leave the soviet union. LOL yeah. Clearly Lisbon DOES bind future parliaments, unless parliament felt particularly like wrecking the country economically. We have lost control of regulation of the currency and the economy. The only good news on that front atm is that copenhagen failed to deliver direct taxation powers to the EU, so now the push will be for a Tobin tax on transactions to fund bank bailouts via the IMF. The EU state desperately needs direct taxation powers

To this we can add the absolute unlawfulness of the signing of lisbon itself, when no party had any mandate to legislate sovereignty out of the country. Not only has parliament abandoned it's own legitimacy by the nature of what it signed, it signed it unlawfully. Remember the referendum the people were denied by deceit?

If you wish to cowtow to unlawful enslavement, then by all means go ahead. Keep yourself small, try not to attract attention to yourself, try not to break laws you didn't know about and have no defence to, who knows, you might make it through, and then you can be properly grateful when others get your freedom back for you

[yozhik]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

An interesting stance, but alas, one that defies logic.

1. Parliamant is a construct; a legal fiction. It is a product of man and therefore can not be greater than man, for the created can not be greater than the creator.

2. Parliament passed a law giving parliament sovereignty? Cool. So how exactly does THAT work? I dare say Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and any other tyrannical despot dictated the exact same superiority. A superiority which never had consent of the governed.

Have you, as a man, ever agreed to parliament being the omnipotent being?
That flies directly in the face of a 'democracy', or at least the commonly held misconception we have been given. A 'democracy' [theoretically] places the pwer in the hands 'of the people'; the politicians are but mere elected servants and a single voice of the collective cries from within the community.

All power [sovereignty] comes from the electors; not the elected.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a non-sensical concept designed by the elite for the elite.

[yozhik]

it certainly doesn't give individuals rights to declare themselves sovereign and have that recognised by any significant legal authority.

Very true.

Nothing 'gives individuals rights'.
If by 'individuals' you were referring to men and women, then it needs to be corrected that men and women have rights.

There is no 'giving' ... certainly not from a fictional entity like a 'Parliament' that can [allegedly] declare itself above the law.

The more you actually stop to think of the claim, the more ludicrous it becomes.

[yozhik]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Might be more relevant to come here asking if anyone recognises it, rather than being simply aware of it.
I'm aware of scat and watersports as sexual fetishes that exist; I don't recognise them as being relevant to me.

[fotheringsmirth]

An interesting stance, but alas, one that defies logic.

1. Parliamant is a construct; a legal fiction. It is a product of man and therefore can not be greater than man, for the created can not be greater than the creator.

2. Parliament passed a law giving parliament sovereignty? Cool. So how exactly does THAT work? I dare say Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe and any other tyrannical despot dictated the exact same superiority. A superiority which never had consent of the governed.

Have you, as a man, ever agreed to parliament being the omnipotent being?
That flies directly in the face of a 'democracy', or at least the commonly held misconception we have been given. A 'democracy' [theoretically] places the pwer in the hands 'of the people'; the politicians are but mere elected servants and a single voice of the collective cries from within the community.

All power [sovereignty] comes from the electors; not the elected.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a non-sensical concept designed by the elite for the elite.

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act. The legal system in the UK acknowledges that Parliament is sovereign. Despite your own personal opinions on the matter (I have reservations with the idea), it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

2. You misunderstood. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't a law, it's a doctrine, which accords it greater power. It wasn't written up by Parliament itself, but if you read Dicey then that's pretty much where it all came from. It underlies all court decisions in matters of public law and the basic structure of the imperfect UK democracy.

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

[fotheringsmirth]

Might be more relevant to come here asking if anyone recognises it, rather than being simply aware of it.
I'm aware of scat and watersports as sexual fetishes that exist; I don't recognise them as being relevant to me.

Whether you recognise it or not is meaningless: the courts do and if you're placed up in front of a judge and claim that you aren't bound by statute it is this very doctrine that will make him/her laugh at you.

[somethinganonymous]

Parliament is NOT sovereign. it is sovereign in name only, as in, fiction. just as the queen is not a sovereign, but a sovereign in name.

[fotheringsmirth]

Very true.

Nothing 'gives individuals rights'.
If by 'individuals' you were referring to men and women, then it needs to be corrected that men and women have rights.

There is no 'giving' ... certainly not from a fictional entity like a 'Parliament' that can [allegedly] declare itself above the law.

The more you actually stop to think of the claim, the more ludicrous it becomes.

It's not a claim, it's the way things are. Parliament doesn't declare itself above the law, in fact quite the opposite. There are paths like judicial review, the Ombudsman, etc. that citizens can use to express grievances with the state - all of which have come from acts of Parliament.

The idea that rights shouldn't have to be 'given' just demonstrates a real misunderstanding of history and philosophy. In the historical sense, it was always the practise of ancient civilizations, governments, tribes, etc. for all individuals to give up their rights to an authoriity of some sort. That was the default position and was accepted for a very long time. The 'granting' of rights, therefore, is an acknowledgment that this shouldn't be the default position and realising that certain rights cannot be taken away by government, which is why the government themselves grant it. If there were no grant, it would be assumed that they belonged to the state because people are authoritarian and dictatorial by nature to make things easier for the powerful. Instead, what happens is that there are safeguards put in place through legislation that grant people rights that governments can't take away from them.

Philosophically speaking - it took a long time for people to realise that they had rights. Only in the past 10,000 years or so have human beings been seriously considering the fact that as individuals they have rights. So therefore, it's necessary to right them down, because once again they are not the default position, whether you like it or not.

[pleasuredome]

But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

lol

is the system you're refering to the one that is based on "dieu et mon droit"?

[somethinganonymous]

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act. The legal system in the UK acknowledges that Parliament is sovereign. Despite your own personal opinions on the matter (I have reservations with the idea), it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

2. You misunderstood. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't a law, it's a doctrine, which accords it greater power. It wasn't written up by Parliament itself, but if you read Dicey then that's pretty much where it all came from. It underlies all court decisions in matters of public law and the basic structure of the imperfect UK democracy.

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

the legal system acknowledges parliament as sovereign because, just like the parliament, the legal system is fiction. Man is above parliament if the State consents. Man created the parliament. Fiction does not own the Man, fiction owns the person.

[fotheringsmirth]

Parliament is NOT sovereign. it is sovereign in name only, as in, fiction. just as the queen is not a sovereign, but a sovereign in name.

It's sovereign in law. The real irony of this Freeman thing is the claim that one is not bound by statute, but by common law. Yet statute is only given force THROUGH common law. Acts of Parliament are completely meaningless until they become interpreted by the judiciary, which means that they are, by definition and custom, given force at common law. Unless you want to argue that all cases which interpret Acts of Parliament are somehow invalid because you say so.

[fotheringsmirth]

lol

is the system you're refering to the one that is based on "dieu et mon droit"?

Not anymore it isn't.

[fotheringsmirth]

the legal system acknowledges parliament as sovereign because, just like the parliament, the legal system is fiction. Man is above parliament if the State consents. Man created the parliament. Fiction does not own the Man, fiction owns the person.

FMOTL is fiction, because it doesn't ever work as an argument in court. If it did legal textbooks would be full of it. Unless you're alleging that it's all a conspiracy involving every single lawyer, judge, law professor and legal author in the world? If that's true, then how could anybody learn about it to give a judgment in your favour?

[pleasuredome]

Not anymore it isn't.

wow, i must have been seeing things the last time i was in a court. i could have sworn i saw "dieu et mon droit" written on the wall above the judge, and a bible ready to be sworn upon.

[fotheringsmirth]

wow, i must have been seeing things the last time i was in a court. i could have sworn i saw "dieu et mon droit" written on the wall above the judge, and a bible ready to be sworn upon.

They're all tradition, just like the Monarchy itself. Technically speaking the Crown owns every bit of land and property in Britain, that doesn't mean that the Queen actually owns your XBox in any serious sense.

[pleasuredome]

They're all tradition, just like the Monarchy itself. Technically speaking the Crown owns every bit of land and property in Britain, that doesn't mean that the Queen actually owns your XBox in any serious sense.

you may call it tradition, but those who know what they're talking about know it to be law.

technically speaking there is no such thing as ownership, so technically speaking the crown owns fuck all, unless the crown can verify it is one deity commonly known as the creator. technically what you're talking about is claim, and technically speaking the maxim of law is "first in time, first in line". as God's law is first in time and natural, and as it is God's will, as given in testimony in Genesis 1:26-28, for man to have dominion over the earth, and as the crown exists nowhere except on paper, then such a claim is quite pitiful and as artificial as the realm.

[dolores1]

It's not a claim, it's the way things are. Parliament doesn't declare itself above the law, in fact quite the opposite. There are paths like judicial review, the Ombudsman, etc. that citizens can use to express grievances with the state - all of which have come from acts of Parliament.

The idea that rights shouldn't have to be 'given' just demonstrates a real misunderstanding of history and philosophy. In the historical sense, it was always the practise of ancient civilizations, governments, tribes, etc. for all individuals to give up their rights to an authoriity of some sort. That was the default position and was accepted for a very long time. The 'granting' of rights, therefore, is an acknowledgment that this shouldn't be the default position and realising that certain rights cannot be taken away by government, which is why the government themselves grant it. If there were no grant, it would be assumed that they belonged to the state because people are authoritarian and dictatorial by nature to make things easier for the powerful. Instead, what happens is that there are safeguards put in place through legislation that grant people rights that governments can't take away from them.

Philosophically speaking - it took a long time for people to realise that they had rights. Only in the past 10,000 years or so have human beings been seriously considering the fact that as individuals they have rights. So therefore, it's necessary to right them down, because once again they are not the default position, whether you like it or not.

I would like you to read and actually understand what you have written in your posts please.

Take every sentence and consider the implications within.

Until you do so and really understand these; there is no discussion possible.

[fotheringsmirth]

you may call it tradition, but those who know what they're talking about know it to be law.

technically speaking there is no such thing as ownership, so technically speaking the crown owns fuck all, unless the crown can verify it is one deity commonly known as the creator. technically what you're talking about is claim, and technically speaking the maxim of law is "first in time, first in line". as God's law is first in time and natural, and as it is God's will, as given in testimony in Genesis 1:26-28, for man to have dominion over the earth, and as the crown exists nowhere except on paper, then such a claim is quite pitiful and as artificial as the realm.

'Those who know what they're talking about' - at which University did you study Law?

Ownership has always been difficult to define at law, but it's just true that technically the Crown owns all land in the UK. There's no need to identify yourself as God in the legal system so I have no idea what you're talking about there, unless you mean some kind of natural law principle, in which case British law isn't based on a natural law philosophy, which Jeremy Bentham equated to 'belief in Unicorns...'. You can quote the bible all you want, but under the British legal system, it has no weight. The UK is a secular state and as such natural law and The Bible are not recognised sources of law.

[fotheringsmirth]

I would like you to read and actually understand what you have written in your posts please.

Take every sentence and consider the implications within.

Until you do so and really understand these; there is no discussion possible.

Instead of just making sweeping, general criticisms like this, would you care to challenge me on specific points? Discussion is made impossible with comments like this. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to explain myself.

[zarah]

Techicnally, Parliament is supreme, which means it can repeal any piece of legislation it likes, it can also remove us from Europe and extricate itself from the confines of any treaty it wishes.

The Parliament is the executive which contains elected officials which the governed have handed some of their power to. This paradox illustrates that Parliament remains supreme only while the governed wish it to be so.

John Locke argued that the executive cannot hold more power than a single person can have precisely for this reason. .

[zarah]

'Those who know what they're talking about' - at which University did you study Law?
You can quote the bible all you want, but under the British legal system, it has no weight. The UK is a secular state and as such natural law and The Bible are not recognised sources of law.

Common Law finds its origins in higher or natural law. At which university did you study law?

[relentless]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone here is aware of the legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It states that laws handed down by Parliament are the highest law in the country and superior to common law. Along with the seperation of powers it's probably the most important doctrine in matters of UK constitutional law, yet nobody here seems to mention it. Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty


Define Parliament..

[pleasuredome]

'Those who know what they're talking about' - at which University did you study Law?

Ownership has always been difficult to define at law, but it's just true that technically the Crown owns all land in the UK. There's no need to identify yourself as God in the legal system so I have no idea what you're talking about there, unless you mean some kind of natural law principle, in which case British law isn't based on a natural law philosophy, which Jeremy Bentham equated to 'belief in Unicorns...'. You can quote the bible all you want, but under the British legal system, it has no weight. The UK is a secular state and as such natural law and The Bible are not recognised sources of law.

introduce the crown to me and i'll congratulate him on how magnificent his holdings are. that'll be the day when unicorns are as true as the crown owning land.

"...The Bible are not recognised... law" lol

just thought i'd add that i had a meeting with a former barrister who was involved in getting the commons expenses out into open by using certain protocols. these protocols involved certain members of the lords who you would term "believe in unicorns...", and one certain legal heir of the throne. that might give you a clue as to why brown was calling the archbishop of canterbury a number of times, as it came out in the media. so, i'll get my info from people who know what they're talking about and leave you with your university grade info. many happy legal debates for the festive season to you... for what its worth.

[fotheringsmirth]

Common Law finds its origins in higher or natural law. At which university did you study law?

Lancaster. Natural Law is a part of it, but the stuff you're talking about regarding laws from Genesis, etc. and the idea that your own version of Natural Rights are supreme over the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. is just false. In this sense, the legal system tends towards legal positivism. In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

[fotheringsmirth]

introduce the crown to me and i'll congratulate him on how magnificent his holdings are. that'll be the day when unicorns are as true as the crown owning land.

"...The Bible are not recognised... law" lol

just thought i'd add that i had a meeting with a former barrister who was involved in getting the commons expenses out into open by using certain protocols. these protocols involved certain members of the lords who you would term "believe in unicorns...", and one certain legal heir of the throne. that might give you a clue as to why brown was calling the archbishop of canterbury a number of times, as it came out in the media. so, i'll get my info from people who know what they're talking about and leave you with your university grade info. many happy legal debates for the festive season to you... for what its worth.

Okay, but those Lords who believe in Natural Law would also acknowledge that Parliament is sovereign and therefore you can't simply assert supposed Natural Law rights as a rebuttal to legislation. Brown was talking to the Archbishop of Canterbury because he has to talk to a lot of people every day/ The fact that he spoke to an incredibly influencial public figure about expenses suggests he was trying to secure some kind of political backing if it suggests anything at all (which it probably doesn't). What is 'university grade info' when it's at home, by the way?

Also, it wasn't me that used the 'belief in unicorns' quote, but Jeremy Bentham. Look him up.

[john white]

What is 'university grade info' when it's at home, by the way?

Limited knowledge. And it shows


Also, it wasn't me that used the 'belief in unicorns' quote, but Jeremy Bentham. Look him up.

Ah the creator of the panoptican idea. So glad he cooked up that one now we live in a country doing it's damnedest to be one. Denier of natural rights and contemptuous of the Founding Fathers of the American constitution

I can see why you, who seems to find the idea that the little man can say "LOL fuck off" to power so unconscionable, would refer to such an elitist

But we are STILL saying "LOL" to power and we aren't going to stop, come imprisonment or death: we will not stop

We are NOT Slaves!

[zarah]

Lancaster. Natural Law is a part of it, but the stuff you're talking about regarding laws from Genesis, etc. and the idea that your own version of Natural Rights are supreme over the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. is just false. In this sense, the legal system tends towards legal positivism. In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

My daughter just won a place studying Psychology there. Is it a good universtiy?

No, Im not talking about the bible at all, I'm talking about the origins of common law.

You're right about entrenched rights as a sovereign individual being recognised in law, which they are. Obviously. The HRA was introduced because of incessant action being taken by individuals against the government at European level precisely because the believed their intrinsic rights were being breached.

I would argue that many of our natural rights are breached simply through our collective ignorance of our lawful rights. As someone who's studied law, although I don't know if you practice, you will understand the argument of the accessibility of the legal and lawful system to the majority of people. I've been looking into this fotl cocept, having also studied law at univesity level, and it seems to have an extremely interesting possibility of viability.

[yozhik]

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act. The legal system in the UK acknowledges that Parliament is sovereign. Despite your own personal opinions on the matter (I have reservations with the idea), it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

2. You misunderstood. Parliamentary sovereignty isn't a law, it's a doctrine, which accords it greater power. It wasn't written up by Parliament itself, but if you read Dicey then that's pretty much where it all came from. It underlies all court decisions in matters of public law and the basic structure of the imperfect UK democracy.

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

It all sounds lovely and 'concrete', but when you cut through all of the wonderful verbiage; its just tosh.

1. Your own personal opinion of Parliament as a legal fiction is irrelevant, because what matters is how the judiciary and executive act.
Wow ... really?
So Parliament being a legal fiction is irrelevant?
Along with its legal fiction buddies; Jude and Cutey?

The 'system' revolves around arguments like yours; those who are willing to argue that 3 legal fictions have authority over us.
You'll use beautifully 'educated' language, and solid reasoning within the constraints of the system, but never allow for 'free will' and never acknowledge that what you are holding up on the pedestal is man made. Parly, Jude and Cutey are all man made. They do not have any greater authority over man nor do they have divine rights.

Dicey? ... Who the f ... anyway ... if you read Dr Seuss, you get the same commentary, but with pictures ...

Its all an illusion supported by rhetoric.

it is still a simple fact of the United Kingdom's legal system that Parliament is sovereign.

Great.
Who cares?
It is a simple fact of Football Manager 2010's software that Chelsea receive a trade embargo through to September 2010.

The 'United Kingdom legal system' is corporate policy.
Now what?

Furthermore, this 'consent' you refer to has been grossly misunderstood. It's not the kind of consent you need to provide before you have sex with someone, i.e. individual consent. It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law) and 2) passive consent, which is derived through staying in the realm. If you want to withdraw consent, you can leave the country. Furthermore, there is the chance of rebellion. But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.

.. and if;
1. the man or woman does not vote and is not on the 'register'.
2. has notarised claims removing consent [non-passive, removing acquiesence]

... then your premise fails.

You keep referring to 'the system' as the reference point; as the divine authority. With this cyclic reasoning, I'm reminded of the book 'Catch 22' ...

But there is nothing embedded in the system that lets you 'opt out' of it as you believe.
So you would be both describing and justifying, slavery?
Correct?

[yozhik]

Whether you recognise it or not is meaningless: the courts do and if you're placed up in front of a judge and claim that you aren't bound by statute it is this very doctrine that will make him/her laugh at you.

Correct.

But I don't recognise Mr/Mrs Judgey Wudgey as anything but a buffoon sitting in a high chair.
Of course the courts are going to recognise the courts.
FFS ... of course the courts are going to acknowledge the existence of parliament and some imagined power ... if they didn't, the court system would not exist.

What a ridculous argument.

Can you not understand that the judges and their deep felt believe in an illusion makes me laugh at them?
Do they still believe in Santa Claus??

[yozhik]

It's sovereign in law. The real irony of this Freeman thing is the claim that one is not bound by statute, but by common law. Yet statute is only given force THROUGH common law. Acts of Parliament are completely meaningless until they become interpreted by the judiciary, which means that they are, by definition and custom, given force at common law. Unless you want to argue that all cases which interpret Acts of Parliament are somehow invalid because you say so.

Its already been discussed previously, but as you are a new system defender on this forum, you probably haven't taken the time to do any background research.

Yes ... we 'get it' ... the term 'common law' is something which refers to the collective work of the judiciary; case law ... precedent, etc, etc.

What is most often referred to here as Common Law is the fundamental laws of 'no harm, no loss, no fraud'.

Your argument is false and flawed.
At no point will you find the FOTL concept give credence nor recognition to statute law.
Now, whilst you can salivate over the riddle of common law/statute law ... thats all you're really doing ... salivating over the misuse of words.

Which is EXACTLY what 'your system' is sustained by; the misuse of words [plain English versus legalese].
Ironic; your posts are a mini version of the illusion and deception.

What you refer to as 'common law' is not what most of those on the FOTL forum use 'common law' to mean.

Capiche?

[yozhik]

FMOTL is fiction, because it doesn't ever work as an argument in court. If it did legal textbooks would be full of it. Unless you're alleging that it's all a conspiracy involving every single lawyer, judge, law professor and legal author in the world? If that's true, then how could anybody learn about it to give a judgment in your favour?

Have you ever stood back after you have spoken or written and thought ... "fuck me ... that shit stinks!!"

Seriously ... dude ... you can't type this with a straight face ...
FMOTL is fiction, because it doesn't ever work as an argument in court.

That's like arguing that food doesn't exist in Russia because you can't read their cyrillic menus.

[yozhik]

'Those who know what they're talking about' - at which University did you study Law?

Ownership has always been difficult to define at law, but it's just true that technically the Crown owns all land in the UK. There's no need to identify yourself as God in the legal system so I have no idea what you're talking about there, unless you mean some kind of natural law principle, in which case British law isn't based on a natural law philosophy, which Jeremy Bentham equated to 'belief in Unicorns...'. You can quote the bible all you want, but under the British legal system, it has no weight. The UK is a secular state and as such natural law and The Bible are not recognised sources of law.

Ahh ... we have a student of law, defending the legal system.
Go figure.

That's like the AIDs patient lecturing on the virtues of unprotected sex.

[yozhik]

Lancaster. Natural Law is a part of it, but the stuff you're talking about regarding laws from Genesis, etc. and the idea that your own version of Natural Rights are supreme over the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. is just false. In this sense, the legal system tends towards legal positivism. In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

And by 'in a concrete sense', you mean .................. ?

I'm amazed that you can actually hold on tight to this stuff, which when you step back and look at it, is just complete nonsense.

The legal system is all about legal positivism and doesn't recognise blah blah blah ... until there is something concrete within the system .... tosh tosh tosh ... system, gives the system power .... wank wank.

Hey!!
Wake up; smell the coffee.
Noone here buys this shit anymore.

We believe in the power of being man.
Your 'system' no longer intimidates.
Man makes law; legal systems do not make man.

Its all a massive ruse.

[rosix]

That's like arguing that food doesn't exist in Russia because you can't read their cyrillic menus.

yea.. wow some of these supporting points are weak. For me it's EXTREMELY comparable to the [non]health system (research charities, pharma companies, all of it):

There's FAR more money and power in treating ailments than there is in curing them.

[yozhik]

It's consent of the governed through various means, but the main two are: 1) democratic elections (say whatever you want about the voting process, but they provide consentin UK constitutional law)

OK ... so in your world, 'voting' is;

a benefit, or
a privilege, or
a right, or
an obligation


What does 'the system' tell you your answer is?

[rosix]

OK ... so in your world, 'voting' is;

a benefit, or
a privilege, or
a right, or
an obligation


What does 'the system' tell you your answer is?

well, perhaps unknowingly, it seems he has said that voting is one method of giving one's consent - great that I've never EVER voted on anything then :)

[intellection]

You're right about entrenched rights as a sovereign individual being recognised in law, [/QUOTE]

Very powerful word is 'entrenched' and often used out of context. No statue/law or 'right' is entrenched in the UK legal system. That is the basis of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

[number_6]

Excellent posts, fotheringsmirth, welcome to the forum. Don't be deterred by the negative comments of the brainwashed here. They refuse to recognise reality.

[yozhik]

Excellent posts, fotheringsmirth, welcome to the forum. Don't be deterred by the negative comments of the brainwashed here. They refuse to recognise reality.

Thanks for contributing ... :rolleyes:


'negative comments of the brainwashed'
You're too funny number_6 ... where do you come up with this stuff?
Brainwashed? Oh dear ... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Brainwashed?
By whom?
With what?
For what purpose?

'refuse to recognise reality'
Whose reality?

reality [rɪˈælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them

If 'the system' is reality ... why does it require guns and tasers to enforce it?
:rolleyes:

That would strongly suggest that the reality of 'the system' is that which 'one might wish them to be', rather than what they actually are.

[fotheringsmirth]

My daughter just won a place studying Psychology there. Is it a good universtiy?

No, Im not talking about the bible at all, I'm talking about the origins of common law.

You're right about entrenched rights as a sovereign individual being recognised in law, which they are. Obviously. The HRA was introduced because of incessant action being taken by individuals against the government at European level precisely because the believed their intrinsic rights were being breached.

I would argue that many of our natural rights are breached simply through our collective ignorance of our lawful rights. As someone who's studied law, although I don't know if you practice, you will understand the argument of the accessibility of the legal and lawful system to the majority of people. I've been looking into this fotl cocept, having also studied law at univesity level, and it seems to have an extremely interesting possibility of viability.

Lancaster is a brilliant Uni. Its reputation isn't as high as it should be considering the results it gets and the general high standard of education there, but it's a great environment with an excellent campus and lots of great people. I've never known anybody choosing Lancaster who had a bad word to say about it.

I agree that the legal system is viewed as inaccessible, but for the large part it pretty much is. There's so many ins and outs and it's changing constantly, so for a lay person to keep up with it would be difficult because you just wouldn't have enough time. It's a full-time comittment. I saw this FOTL concept and just found it to be one that's completely ignorant of basic legal principles. I've heard stories of people trying this stuff in front of judges and basically getting laughed at. In particular, the whole 'capital letter' idea. There was one judgment where the judge made a joke along the lines of: 'the applicants capital letter argument is frivolous and therefore the claim is DENIED'.

[intellection]

Excellent posts, fotheringsmirth, welcome to the forum. Don't be deterred by the negative comments of the brainwashed here. They refuse to recognise reality.

At least the Freeman Movement is asking questions. Although I must admit that I find it, as it stands, mainly a philisophical argument. What may be just does not make reality.

[fotheringsmirth]

Are we getting somewhere? Are you freely acknowledging that this is actually just a point of view on the way things should be, rather than a representation of what they are? My understanding was that generally speaking, FMOTL subscribers believe that their arguments will hold up in court, thus providing a real way to 'opt out' of the system. If you're just arguing that you don't acknowledge Parliament as sovereign and would face the repercussions if there was any run-in with the law, then that's a different matter. I was arguing the way things are, not the way they should be.

[fotheringsmirth]

OK ... so in your world, 'voting' is;

a benefit, or
a privilege, or
a right, or
an obligation


What does 'the system' tell you your answer is?

If you mean the legal system, it's an absolute right.

[fotheringsmirth]

At least the Freeman Movement is asking questions. Although I must admit that I find it, as it stands, mainly a philisophical argument. What may be just does not make reality.

It's fine to ask questions, I just know some people who take it as a statement of reality when it isn't. I personally have some reservations with Parliamentary Sovereignty, but I can see why it's in place. My argument was just that's in place and fundamental, not that it should be.

[yozhik]

If you mean the legal system, it's an absolute right.

So is the 'absolute right' inherent and unalienable or is it prescribed and given?

[fotheringsmirth]

So is the 'absolute right' inherent and unalienable or is it prescribed and given?

In a philosophical sense and in Western jurisprudence and legal philosophy, it's considered an absolute right. Countries in the EU that refuse to hold elections are expelled from the Union.

[yozhik]

In a philosophical sense and in Western jurisprudence and legal philosophy, it's considered an absolute right. Countries in the EU that refuse to hold elections are expelled from the Union.

Thats a great answer to YOUR question that was never asked; but it isn't an answer to the question that was asked. I'm not sure which question you're replying to but it certainly isn't the one posed ...



So let me repeat it for you;
Is the 'absolute right' an inherent and unalienable right or is it a prescribed right that is given?

[danster82]

. So for people to go around suggesting that individuals can declare themselves sovereign when in the UK it is Parliament alone that is sovereign, is obviously misguided.

Of course people can declare themselves sovereign, here watch, " I am sovereign"

The misguidedness comes from believing you cant.

[fotheringsmirth]

Thats a great answer to YOUR question that was never asked; but it isn't an answer to the question that was asked.



So let me repeat it for you;
Is the 'absolute right' an inherent and unalienable right or is it a prescribed right that is given?

I think I answered it. But you're clearly making some sort of statement rather than asking a question. What exactly are you trying to say?

[yozhik]

I think I answered it. But you're clearly making some sort of statement rather than asking a question. What exactly are you trying to say?

fotheringsmirth ... I'm confused.

You have no issues arguing and parroting the system and citing legal argument, but you are unable to answer a simple question?

... and please, check your obfuscation at the door ... this is a no diversion zone.


Is the 'absolute right' of voting an inherent and unalienable right, or is it a prescribed and given right?


I have no idea what that has to do with eviction from the EU Union and I have no idea how quoting me jurisprudence and legal philosophy is an answer to the question.

Is it A or B ... unalienable/inherent or prescribed/given?
A or B?

Not a statement as you wish to imply; its obviously a question.
Multiple choice question. One or the other.
Which is it?

[yozhik]

I think I answered it.

I know you haven't.

[fotheringsmirth]

fotheringsmirth ... I'm confused.

You have no issues arguing and parroting the system and citing legal argument, but you are unable to answer a simple question?

... and please, check your obfuscation at the door ... this is a no diversion zone.


Is the 'absolute right' of voting an inherent and unalienable right, or is it a prescribed and given right?


I have no idea what that has to do with eviction from the EU Union and I have no idea how quoting me jurisprudence and legal philosophy is an answer to the question.

Is it A or B ... unalienable/inherent or prescribed/given?
A or B?

Not a statement as you wish to imply; its obviously a question.
Multiple choice question. One or the other.
Which is it?

As not every country has an electoral system, it's prescribed.

[yozhik]

As not every country has an electoral system, it's prescribed.

So its a benefit?

A 'prescribed right', which can be given and taken, isn't a true right; its a benefit disguised as a right, by calling it a right.

Key point being, if it can be given, it can be taken.
This opens up many other questions.
What is the 'quid pro quo'; if it is given, what are the terms and conditions?
If it is given and taken; who or what is it given and taken by?
From where does this implied authority derived?

If voting is a 'right'; how can statute apply a penalty for non-registration?
... makes no sense.

A 'prescribed right' also places it in the realm of contract.
Offer and acceptance; contract.

[rosix]

So its a benefit?

A 'prescribed right', which can be given and taken, isn't a true right; its a benefit disguised as a right, by calling it a right.

Key point being, if it can be given, it can be taken.
This opens up many other questions.
What is the 'quid pro quo'; if it is given, what are the terms and conditions?
If it is given and taken; who or what is it given and taken by?
From where does this implied authority derived?

If voting is a 'right'; how can statute apply a penalty for non-registration?
... makes no sense.

A 'prescribed right' also places it in the realm of contract.
Offer and acceptance; contract.

shhhh he's sleeping, he might be having a nice dream at the moment so don't wake him up!

[fotheringsmirth]

So its a benefit?

A 'prescribed right', which can be given and taken, isn't a true right; its a benefit disguised as a right, by calling it a right.

Key point being, if it can be given, it can be taken.
This opens up many other questions.
What is the 'quid pro quo'; if it is given, what are the terms and conditions?
If it is given and taken; who or what is it given and taken by?
From where does this implied authority derived?

If voting is a 'right'; how can statute apply a penalty for non-registration?

... makes no sense.

You asked a complex question and expect a simple answer. Technically all rights are 'prescribed', because they can all be taken away in various circumstances and have been throughout history. It's relevant to talk about jurisprudence and the EU because they are what makes the voting system a right that is absolute. It's so well-founded at law that there is no conceivable possibility of it being taken away, so in that sense it's absolute. But I don't really see the point your trying to make. That being granted rights is a bad thing?

The rest of your questions don't make much sense except the last one. It's actually a fairly good question, but a bit abstract. I don't really know much about the laws on voter registration, but I would hazard a guess that having everybody in the country on voter registration significantally reduces the risk of voter fraud.

[danster82]

You asked a complex question and expect a simple answer. Technically all rights are 'prescribed', because they can all be taken away in various circumstances and have been throughout history. It's relevant to talk about jurisprudence and the EU because they are what makes the voting system a right that is absolute. It's so well-founded at law that there is no conceivable possibility of it being taken away, so in that sense it's absolute. But I don't really see the point your trying to make. That being granted rights is a bad thing?

The rest of your questions don't make much sense except the last one. It's actually a fairly good question, but a bit abstract. I don't really know much about the laws on voter registration, but I would hazard a guess that having everybody in the country on voter registration significantally reduces the risk of voter fraud.

Until you can fully get to grips with the fact that you are the sovereign then it will never make sense to you.

You sound like a well educated citizen but citizens are not sovereigns they are subjects and if a sovereign has identified him/her self as a citizen and believes it so then they will act accordingly, this really is a matter of belief in my opinion, you may believe for example that if you can put a freeman in prison for not obeying a statue that that freeman is not free anymore but the freeman is indeed still free in mind and spirit whilst being detained because he does not and never will believe he is not free.

This is the freeman perspective and you have much knowledge but you lack the perspective.

[rosix]

You asked a complex question and expect a simple answer. Technically all rights are 'prescribed', because they can all be taken away in various circumstances and have been throughout history. It's relevant to talk about jurisprudence and the EU because they are what makes the voting system a right that is absolute. It's so well-founded at law that there is no conceivable possibility of it being taken away, so in that sense it's absolute. But I don't really see the point your trying to make. That being granted rights is a bad thing?

The rest of your questions don't make much sense except the last one. It's actually a fairly good question, but a bit abstract. I don't really know much about the laws on voter registration, but I would hazard a guess that having everybody in the country on voter registration significantally reduces the risk of voter fraud.

my eyes hurt.. that was so painful to read.

[fotheringsmirth]

Until you can fully get to grips with the fact that you are the sovereign then it will never make sense to you.

You sound like a well educated citizen but citizens are not sovereigns they are subjects and if a sovereign has identified him/her self as a citizen and believes it so then they will act accordingly, this really is a matter of belief in my opinion, you may believe for example that if you can put a freeman in prison for not obeying a statue that that freeman is not free anymore but the freeman is indeed still free in mind and spirit whilst being detained because he does not and never will believe he is not free.

This is the freeman perspective and you have much knowledge but you lack the perspective.

I understand what you're saying. I was under the impression that people thought they could escape jail through magic code words embedded in the legal system. The belief in oneself and rational egotism is something I agree with also and consider very healthy. My issue is with people who think that they can evade prison and make their debt disappear, because that's potentially very harmful to the people wishing to pursue that path.

[fotheringsmirth]

my eyes hurt.. that was so painful to read.

You can take issue with my writing style but if you don't have anything to contribute then don't type anything. Comments like this don't further the conversation.

[yozhik]

Wow ... so much to try and comprehend here, its scary.
fotheringsmirth, I think it fair to say we come from completely different standings and belief of self.

Can I assume that 'status' is a relevant and important concept/doctrine in your world?

Technically all rights are 'prescribed', because they can all be taken away in various circumstances and have been throughout history.
I take it you are specifically referring to 'citizen's rights' or 'civil rights'?
Possibly even 'human rights'.
However, given that 'citizen' is a matter of contract and places the man/woman in to the realm of legal personality and corporate being [as does 'human rights'] ... and 'civil rights' again refer to what is legal and not necessarily lawful, you're arguing from inside a box.

With all due respect, you should try freeing your mind from the shackles you have voluntarily placed upon it by inflicting years of institutional education upon it.

It's relevant to talk about jurisprudence and the EU because they are what makes the voting system a right that is absolute.

According to ........... ???

Again, you're arguing from inside a box.
Like the fleas in the tin can.
The EU says that voting is an absolute right therefore it is an absolute right, which has been supported and verified by the European Courts, which is a body established by the EU, which now has a legal personality because of the Lisbon Treaty, which was ratified for the EU by the EU members ...

All roads lead to Rome.
All of your reference points are cyclical and confined to a single belief system. It is true because the system says the system is true ... and all those who question the system are wrong, because the rules of the system state it so.


It's so well-founded at law that there is no conceivable possibility of it being taken away, so in that sense it's absolute.
What? Voting?
No possibility of it being taken away???
Tell that to the thousands of prison inmates.


But I don't really see the point your trying to make. That being granted rights is a bad thing?
Being granted rights is the same as a benefit.
What is 'bad' is there is never full disclosure.
There is always quid pro quo ... it is a contract ... and yet full disclosure is never given and if anything is granted, it can be waived. Again; that's never explained.

A 'prescribed right' is a benefit of 'xyz'; either an action or some form of agreement.
An unalienable right is one that can never be taken.
Unalienable rights can not be given [or taken]; they are inherent.
Hence 'unalienable'.

The rest of your questions don't make much sense except the last one. It's actually a fairly good question, but a bit abstract. I don't really know much about the laws on voter registration, but I would hazard a guess that having everybody in the country on voter registration significantally reduces the risk of voter fraud.
That's definitely the argument ... but doesn't explain either the obligation nor the penalty.
If voting is a 'prescribed right' [benefit], then it can be waived.
If registering to vote is merely a process to facilitate the exercising of the 'absolute right' of voting, which has subsequently been waived, then so has the process.
Penalising the right to waive a benefit would appear to be unlawful, because it amounts to duress and coercion, which would void the contract ab initio.

'Sign this contract or you will be fined' ... is coercion.
It removes consent and eliminated a meeting of minds.

A 'prescribed absolute right' [voting] isn't a right if it has obligations.
You have the right to vote; you have to register ... makes no sense.
Its illogical ... the premise is flawed ... and if the legal premise is flawed, it isn't lawful.

[somethinganonymous]

FMOTL is fiction, because it doesn't ever work as an argument in court. If it did legal textbooks would be full of it. Unless you're alleging that it's all a conspiracy involving every single lawyer, judge, law professor and legal author in the world? If that's true, then how could anybody learn about it to give a judgment in your favour?

it is a conspiracy involving every lawyer in the world. they are not all aware of it though. lawyers are fiction and as fiction they can 'speak' whatever they want, i.e. lie without breaking the law. Persons in court are ships, signalized by hoisting the sail when the judge appears - 'all rise'... the key here is STANDING. Man stands in court, a person is represented. No one would need a lawyer or a solicitor if they knew the truth...

[somethinganonymous]

Lancaster. Natural Law is a part of it, but the stuff you're talking about regarding laws from Genesis, etc. and the idea that your own version of Natural Rights are supreme over the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. is just false. In this sense, the legal system tends towards legal positivism. In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

LOL. First of, Human Rights Act... A Human is a person, is a corporation. The Human Rights Act is an act, i.e. NOT a law. i.e. it is applicable only to persons, i.e. to corporations and legal fiction. The 'Rights' are therefore NOT rights, but privileges given the Name of rights. At what university did you study?

[yozhik]

Lancaster. Natural Law is a part of it, but the stuff you're talking about regarding laws from Genesis, etc. and the idea that your own version of Natural Rights are supreme over the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. is just false. In this sense, the legal system tends towards legal positivism. In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

I just feel like giving you a big hug and reassuring you that everything will be OK ...

fotheringsmirth ... please, please, please ... read what you are stating as your truth and expecting the whole world to follow as a belief system.

In other words, there are rights that should be regarded as intrinsic, but until they're recognised at law through a legal system they don't exist in a concrete sense.

So ... we have rights that are intrinsic/inherent/unalienable ... but until a legal system recognises them ... we don't actually have them.

Correct?

Can you fully comprehend the absurdity of that statement?
That places an unnamed, fictional 'legal system', which is not voted or requires consent, in a position of absolute power.

Now there are some folk in the City of London Corporation who are rubbing their hands with glee when reading your statements and nodding to each other, in a form of silent congratulatory expression, chuffed with how well the whole legal system, the Bar, etc has worked.

Centuries of work is coming home to roost.

The appointing of 'volunteer' workers from the community, to take roles of importance such as migistrates, to preside over pretend courts, to hand out judgements given to them by the clerks.

Parliaments run by a combination of behind the scene money men, guided by civil servants and palms greased by the likes of Lloyds.

Its a creature of design and magnitude not unlike Frankenstein.


The mere fact that you quote the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc ... as a prime example of all that is good about the system in terms of protecting 'our rights' is laughable.

fotheringsmirth ... and Act that gives me the same 'absolute rights' and protects me, in the same light as it protects a hedge fund in a commercial claim, has absolutely no relevance to me as a man ... a sentient being with free will.

If I am to accept the Human Rights Act, ECHR, etc. as re-presenting my standing, then I am accepting my 'status' as that of a corporation, or an equal to a commercial fiction.

You know where you can stick that pipe and smoke it ... right?

[rosix]

You can take issue with my writing style but if you don't have anything to contribute then don't type anything. Comments like this don't further the conversation.

For me it's EXTREMELY comparable to the [non]health system (research charities, pharma companies, all of it):

There's FAR more money and power in treating ailments than there is in curing them.

does that mean that everyone working for Cancer Research is """"""""""""PART OF THE CONSPIRACY""""""""""""? No.. not knowlingly that is. It's not unlikely they've lost a family member to cancer and think that working 'pro bono' or not for Cancer Research is something positive they can do towards their cause (ridding people of cancer). There is at least one cure for cancer listed at the US patent office and irrefutable proof of all sorts of methods working to cure something as horrible as cancer.

Scientists have time and time again admitted for instance that the only reason they've perpetuated the man-made global-warming myth is because that's where the money [and power] is right now..

Similarly, some people grow up wanting to become policemen because their family was traumatically robbed at some point in their childhood and they never caught the bugger. Almost without fail they will find themselves spending the vast majority of the time with all sorts of crap like stopping people with expired road tax and slapping them with a fine etc.

When true freedom is erroded as slowly as it is, the people part of the body of water complicit in the errosion very rarely take as much notice as they should.

A truly knowledgable and capable population would be hell-on-earth for the current governing bodies as they presently do business. Just like how there's very little power/money in having a population in full knowledge about health - these are also linked as it so happens, all that flouride and aspartame keeps the people dumb.

[yozhik]

The atomic bomb was built exactly the same way.
All cogs in a huge wheel with no clue what they were contributing to.

Compartmentalisation.


Nothing new.

[number_6]

it is a conspiracy involving every lawyer in the world.

Are you for real?

[number_6]

I was under the impression that people thought they could escape jail through magic code words embedded in the legal system.

They do.

[yozhik]

Are you for real?

... and the words immediately after these were .......................... ??


In legalese, I guess you'd say that lawyers were 'tacitly compliant'.
After all, they can't claim 'ignorance', because ignorance is not a defence in Legal Land, is it?

:rolleyes:

[yozhik]

They do.

That's just a blatant lie.
Have you got anything worthy to contribute today number_6?
Or just a series of ill thought out, brief and diversionary back slapping and cheerleading titters?

To use the words of the 'anti-FOTL celebrity' who currently has you fizzing at the bung ...
You can take issue with my writing style but if you don't have anything to contribute then don't type anything. Comments like this don't further the conversation.

[somethinganonymous]

... and the words immediately after these were .......................... ??


In legalese, I guess you'd say that lawyers were 'tacitly compliant'.
After all, they can't claim 'ignorance', because ignorance is not a defence in Legal Land, is it?

:rolleyes:

ignorance is defence in legal land... crassa and supina ignorance can be used for defence, as long as you haven't broken the Law.

[number_6]

That's just a blatant lie.


Really? So it isn't true that some believe that if they say they understand a charge they then "stand under"? Or all of this bollocks about a "person"? Oh, and of course we are all out to sea, it's an Admiralty Court don't you know?

[somethinganonymous]

Are you for real?

yes, I am for real.

[yozhik]

Really? So it isn't true that some believe that if they say they understand a charge they then "stand under"? Or all of this bollocks about a "person"? Oh, and of course we are all out to sea, it's an Admiralty Court don't you know?

So, from your post, is it safe to assume;

1. To 'understand' does not imply to 'stand under'.

2. You do not comprehend the debate/argument pertaining to the term 'person'

Would that be an accurate summation of your position?

[number_6]

yes, I am for real.

OK. Could you provide evidence that every lawyer in the world is in on this "conspiracy"?

[number_6]

So, from your post, is it safe to assume;

1. To 'understand' does not imply to 'stand under'.

2. You do not comprehend the debate/argument pertaining to the term 'person'

Would that be an accurate summation of your position?

The "under" in understand is believed by many to come from an old word meaning "between". So something such as a theory or agreement "stands between" a group of people. It's simple.
Yes I do comprehend and have studied the "person" argument, but my conclusion is that it is wrong with no basis in fact.

[yozhik]

The "under" in understand is believed by many to come from an old word meaning "between". So something such as a theory or agreement "stands between" a group of people. It's simple.

Hmmm ... interesting theory ... but for me, I think the simple explanation is ... well ... simple!

Under means ... errr ... under.

Under the bed, under the water, under the roof, under the blanket ... under.
Not between.
Under.

Its simple.


Yes I do comprehend and have studied the "person" argument, but my conclusion is that it is wrong with no basis in fact.

No basis in fact ... hmmmmm ...
Hey, if it helps you sleep at night; more power to you.

Let me ask you one simple question; could you please explain the following legal definition;

person. a natural person or a legal person.
... and try not to use the word 'person' when defining a 'person'.
:D

[number_6]

Hmmm ... interesting theory ... but for me, I think the simple explanation is ... well ... simple!

Under means ... errr ... under.


Best you study a bit of etymology then;)

[yozhik]

Best you study a bit of etymology then;)

Oh ... ok ... Because by studying etymology, when I say I'm under the roof, what I will actually mean is I'm between the roof?

Or next time its raining cats and dogs, I will stay dry by standing between the umbrella?

Is that your position now?

[number_6]

Oh ... ok ... Because by studying etymology, when I say I'm under the roof, what I will actually mean is I'm between the roof?

Or next time its raining cats and dogs, I will stay dry by standing between the umbrella?

Is that your position now?

Ah, but if you did study it you would realise that when you say you are under a roof you really are under a roof. But when you say "understand" you might not be under anything.

[zarah]

Lancaster is a brilliant Uni. Its reputation isn't as high as it should be considering the results it gets and the general high standard of education there, but it's a great environment with an excellent campus and lots of great people. I've never known anybody choosing Lancaster who had a bad word to say about it.

Great stuff, thanks. I've heard nothing but good about it either, and when we went to have a look around before she made her application I was extremely impressed with everything I saw.

I agree that the legal system is viewed as inaccessible, but for the large part it pretty much is. There's so many ins and outs and it's changing constantly, so for a lay person to keep up with it would be difficult because you just wouldn't have enough time. It's a full-time comittment. I saw this FOTL concept and just found it to be one that's completely ignorant of basic legal principles. I've heard stories of people trying this stuff in front of judges and basically getting laughed at. In particular, the whole 'capital letter' idea. There was one judgment where the judge made a joke along the lines of: 'the applicants capital letter argument is frivolous and therefore the claim is DENIED'.

I agree, that for many reasons, including the ones you've already mentioned, the legal system remains a mystery, and quite often, as I'm sure you'll agree, justice has its price, which is another reason why it's often inaccessible. I've also spoken to friends and people I know who work in the legal field, and most of them find the fotl concept amusing too. I took it all with a pinch of salt until some time earlier this year when I delved a little deeper into its murky depths, and I'd beg to differ with your conclusion. If you practice law, you're obviously better positioned to opine than me, because I've interrupted my legal studies to expand my business, but I still find it an amazingly interesting and ballsy topic.

[yozhik]

oh ... wait ... I see what you have attempted to do ...

understand
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-). But the exact notion is unclear. Perhaps the ult. sense is "be close to," cf. Gk. epistamai "I know how, I know," lit. "I stand upon." Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan. (understande), while other Gmc. languages use compounds meaning "stand before" (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden ). For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean "put together," or "separate," or "take, grasp."

You've taken the words;
the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath", but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among"
out of context. These came with the precondition of;
If this is the meaning
which specifically referred to;
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of,"

IF the meaning was not to "comprehend or grasp the idea of, in terms of "standing in the midst of", then the condition is not met.

In contradistinction, we then come across the etymology for 'under', which in its description includes the key concept of 'subordination'; one which your previous reference did not.

under (prep., adv.)
O.E. under, from P.Gmc. *under- (cf. O.Fris. under, Du. onder, O.H.G. untar, Ger. unter, O.N. undir, Goth. undar), from PIE *ndhero- "lower" (cf. Skt. adhah "below;" Avestan athara- "lower;" L. infernus "lower," infra "below"). Notion of "subordination" was present in O.E. Also used in O.E. as a preposition meaning "between, among," as still in under these circumstances, etc. (though this may be an entirely separate root; see understand).

... which when used in reference to establishing subordination, places the object "lower" or "below"; not "between".

If you are going to try and argue that in a situation which revolves around an armed and uniformed policy enforcer dictating your position by asking if you 'understand' his directives as meaning he is merely standing amongst you ... good luck with that one!

It is clearly an instance hinging on your [implied and agreed] subordination; ergo, 'under' refers to 'lower' or 'below', not 'between'.

Ah, but if you did study it you would realise that when you say you are under a roof you really are under a roof. But when you say "understand" you might not be under anything.

I have studied it; have you?

[zhenshanren]

Great clarity Yozhik.

[yozhik]

Great clarity Yozhik.

I'm just not in the mood for smoke screens today ... so tired of the same bullshit arguments and the same bullshit [intentional] disinformation.

'Some people argue that 'under' means 'between' ...

FFS ... 'some people'.
If anyone who was 'pro-FOTL' made such an unsupported argument as 'some people argue', the likes of asky, number_6, joe, etc would jump on it so fast, we wouldn't have time to breathe!

They'd be demanding 'proof', with court citations.
Evidence - show us the evidence!!!

But they can come on here and bullshit about 'some people would argue' that 'under means between'.
Thats a tactic out of FOX News Handbook; attribute editiorial comments from Murdoch etal, to a unnamed poll which found that 'some people say ... George Bush is the best POTUS ever" ...

Wonderful way of introducing totally unspupported opinion and giving it some illusional credibility.

I think asky and number_6 lovingly refer to it as MYTH.
:rolleyes:

[relentless]

UNDER. Sometimes used in its literal sense of below in position, beneath, but more frequently in its secondary meaning of "inferior" or "subordinate." - Blacks 4th Ed

[yozhik]

UNDER. Sometimes used in its literal sense of below in position, beneath, but more frequently in its secondary meaning of "inferior" or "subordinate." - Blacks 4th Ed


Does Blacks 4th Ed have 'understand'?

This is the word 'some people would argue' :rolleyes: means something completely different to 'under'.

[relentless]

Does Blacks 4th Ed have 'understand'?

This is the word 'some people would argue' :rolleyes: means something completely different to 'under'.

UNDERSTAND. To Know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. BLD.

[yozhik]

From Blacks 2nd Ed

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=552&pictureid=6155

"it is agreed", relating to contract.

[number_6]

yozhik, it is all very well quoting Black's, but you fail to recognise that a legal dictionary is not a legal authority.

[number_6]

Oh, BTW Strouds is favoured over here.

[yozhik]

Oh, BTW Strouds is favoured over here.

Great.
What does Strouds give as a definition?

[yozhik]

yozhik, it is all very well quoting Black's, but you fail to recognise that a legal dictionary is not a legal authority.

Given the choice of you or Blacks for determining a legal defintion, I'll take Blacks.
No disrespect, but given your litmus test of being a 'legal authority'; I suggest Blacks is closer to that position and certainly more reliable than [the unnamed] 'some people' who would argue it is derived from 'between'.

[number_6]

I'm just not in the mood for smoke screens today ... so tired of the same bullshit arguments and the same bullshit [intentional] disinformation.

'Some people argue that 'under' means 'between' ...


Jargon Buster has just posted this over on TPUC

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9139

[grenadene]

yozhik, it is all very well quoting Black's, but you fail to recognise that a legal dictionary is not a legal authority.

Freeman on the Land philosophy advocates the application of justice. The fact that we live in unlawful times and that the population have largely been remiss at opposing these injustices does not detract from fact that humans collectively have co-existed in abidance of common laws. Authority is something that can be assumed with no lawful basis and thus is not in itself indicative of anything other than vast wealth or military power.

[number_6]

Authority is something that can be assumed with no lawful basis and thus is not in itself indicative of anything other than vast wealth or military power.

By that I take it that you agree with me that Black's is not a legal authority?

[yozhik]

By that I take it that you agree with me that Black's is not a legal authority?

Is it a much lauded legal reference?
Has it provided clarity and definition for legal argument?
What exactly do you mean by 'legal authority'?

[grenadene]

By that I take it that you agree with me that Black's is not a legal authority?

Do you mean 'an authority' in an objective sense? An object sense of justice pertaining to common human values that transcend political viewpoints..

It was certainly written before we entered our current phase of full corporate law which makes its definitions less contaminated by modern political doctrines and thus, arguably, favours common justice.

[yozhik]

Jargon Buster has just posted this over on TPUC

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9139

Six pages of hypothesising with an inconclusive outcome.
Interesting read, but not helpful.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=552&pictureid=6156

I would suggest the 'meaning' is conveyed by the 'application'; i.e its 'intent' and its 'effect'.

[zarah]

At the risk of sounding obtuse, can it not just mean to 'stand under'? In which case a question of, "Do you understand the law?" Would come to mean 'do you stand under the law', which makes absolute sense in terms of fmotl philosophy.

Semantics can be extremely distracting, no?

[number_6]

"Do you understand the law?" Would come to mean 'do you stand under the law', which makes absolute sense in terms of fmotl philosophy.

[/COLOR]

So, to understand a concept is to be bound by that concept?

[zarah]

So, to understand a concept is to be bound by that concept?

Does it not depend on the context?

[number_6]

Does it not depend on the context?

I thought it might;)

[number_6]

Six pages of hypothesising with an inconclusive outcome.


But possibly questions your definition of the word?

[yozhik]

So, to understand a concept is to be bound by that concept?

Thats actually a great question, in a philisophical sense.

If I, for example, 'understand the theory of relativity', does it not then form an agreement between me and my belief system, to be bound by the rules and 'laws' of that concept.

If I understand the concept that hot water burns, then I am 'bound' to that concept insofar as I have an agreement between my physical self and my conscious self, to be bound to the logic of that concept and to act accordingly.

I stand under the restraints and the logic of the concept ... or the implied authority, over my reasoned decision making, of its logic.

Being pedantic, I would amend you statement though.
Rather than being 'bound by that concept', I would suggest that you are 'bound to that concept'.
You are 'bound by' your conscious decision to be 'bound to' the concept.

[number_6]

Do you understand fractional-reserve banking?

[zarah]

I thought it might;)

And why shouldn't it? Would you like to argue some more about semantics? We could squeeze another couple of pages out of it I'm sure :rolleyes:

[yozhik]

But possibly questions your definition of the word?

... and yours.


number_6 ... it isn't my definition.

It is a commonly accepted interpretation of its legal meaning and application.
As suggested earlier, it is more than possible that the best means for defining the word is in the 'intent' and the 'effect' of its use.

[yozhik]

Do you understand fractional-reserve banking?


I readily admit its existence.
I do not deny its widespread use.
I am aware of its machinations.
I comprehend fractional-reserve banking, but I do not accept it as my understanding.

[somethinganonymous]

OK. Could you provide evidence that every lawyer in the world is in on this "conspiracy"?

Nope, don't have to. You have to disprove me to prove the point. You don't prove truth, you disprove lies...

[number_6]

Nope, don't have to. You have to disprove me to prove the point. You don't prove truth, you disprove lies...

You claim that all lawyers are in the conspiracy, but you are not required to substantiate your claim.
You've convinced me.

[number_6]

i readily admit its existence.
I do not deny its widespread use.
I am aware of its machinations.
I comprehend fractional-reserve banking, but i do not accept it as my understanding.
I'm trying to put smilies in, but it wont let me!
Good answer yozhik!

[yozhik]

Nope, don't have to. You have to disprove me to prove the point. You don't prove truth, you disprove lies...

Hmmm ... not sure if I agree here.
The burden of proof is upon he who affirms.


Given your stance, how would you respond if I were to say;
"You owe me a million dollars/pounds!"

Surely you would be asking me for proof of claim, yes?

... and if I was then to respond;
Nope, don't have to. You have to disprove me to prove the point. You don't prove truth, you disprove lies...

... and this was upheld by a court as the 'law of somethinganonymousland'; how would you feel about that?

[somethinganonymous]

Hmmm ... not sure if I agree here.
The burden of proof is upon he who affirms.


Given your stance, how would you respond if I were to say;
"You owe me a million dollars/pounds!"

Surely you would be asking me for proof of claim, yes?

... and if I was then to respond;


... and this was upheld by a court as the 'law of somethinganonymousland'; how would you feel about that?

Good point. But it's a faulty point, for you claiming I owe you a million $, I dispute your claim by claiming I owe you nothing... Then the ball is in your court to disprove my claim... See?

[yozhik]

Good point. But it's a faulty point, for you claiming I owe you a million $, I dispute your claim by claiming I owe you nothing... Then the ball is in your court to disprove my claim... See?

No ... I don't.

Applying your logic;

You claim all lawyers are corrupt.
number_6 claimed they weren't, placing the ball in your court to disprove his claim.

Your response?
I don't have to prove it; you do.

Let me guess ... now he just claims he doesn't have to prove it - that in fact, you do ... and so it goes on, ad infinitum?

At what point does anything actually have to be proven?

Hence the Maxim of Law; the burden of prove is on he who affirms.
Which also supports innocent until proven guilty.

:)

[somethinganonymous]

No ... I don't.

Applying your logic;

You claim all lawyers are corrupt.
number_6 claimed they weren't, placing the ball in your court to disprove his claim.

Your response?
I don't have to prove it; you do.

Let me guess ... now he just claims he doesn't have to prove it - that in fact, you do ... and so it goes on, ad infinitum?

At what point does anything actually have to be proven?

Hence the Maxim of Law; the burden of prove is on he who affirms.
Which also supports innocent until proven guilty.

:)

Again you are wrong... I claimed all lawyers are, not corrupt, but part of the conspiracy... number_6 asked for proof, but did NOT dispute my claim, nor did he make a counterclaim... If he HAD made a counterclaim, then I would have to disprove him....

[yozhik]

Again you are wrong... I claimed all lawyers are, not corrupt, but part of the conspiracy... number_6 asked for proof, but did NOT dispute my claim, nor did he make a counterclaim... If he HAD made a counterclaim, then I would have to disprove him....

Fair enough ... I was wrong and inaccurate with the details.

On looking back you clearly stated that it was a world wide conspiracy involving all lawyers but not all lawyers knew about it.

No biggie.

We're focusing on different issues.
I'm not so concerned about the detail of the statement.
However, I am concerned with the structure of the argument.
The Maxim of Law stands as valid; the burden of proof lies with he who affirms [as per my signature ;) ].

I don't believe [might be wrong ... again] that this has been addressed adequately.

But hey ... not relevant to the thread and has been argued to death elsewhere. :)

[fotheringsmirth]

A lot to go through here, first off, if you don't know what 'understand' means, then you have some catching up to do before you start opinion on complex legal definitions. This is just frivolous and pointless.

As for this whole 'law dictionary' business. It doesn't matter which legal dictionary you use, because they're all equally worthless. There's a reason judges, academics and lawyers have more than one book in their offices and that's because the law can't be summed up into simple definitions, it needs to be seen as a whole, which is why people study it. For anyone seriously interested in the subject, law dictionaries are absolutely useless for anything other than a jog of the memory.

LOL. First of, Human Rights Act... A Human is a person, is a corporation. The Human Rights Act is an act, i.e. NOT a law. i.e. it is applicable only to persons, i.e. to corporations and legal fiction. The 'Rights' are therefore NOT rights, but privileges given the Name of rights. At what university did you study?

Acts apply to everyone, not just corporations and juristic persons.



So ... we have rights that are intrinsic/inherent/unalienable ... but until a legal system recognises them ... we don't actually have them.

Correct?

Can you fully comprehend the absurdity of that statement?
That places an unnamed, fictional 'legal system', which is not voted or requires consent, in a position of absolute power.

*sigh* Yes, that is what I'm saying and it's not as absurd as you pretend it is. If there were no legal system or government in place, then yes, you would have certain intrinsic rights (and have many more taken away by stronger, more aggressive people who want your things/wife, etc.) with regards to voting, it's a system which requires a lot of effort to set up and sustain, so the fact that you have one obviously shows that it's granted to you. With regards to other rights that the legal system regards as absolute, try not to think of it so much as being granted something, but rather having the government or legal system taking something away from themselves. I really can't see why anyone except the most devout anarchoprimitivist would see this as a negative.

Now there are some folk in the City of London Corporation who are rubbing their hands with glee when reading your statements and nodding to each other, in a form of silent congratulatory expression, chuffed with how well the whole legal system, the Bar, etc has worked.

Whilst the image of thousands of clones of Mr. Burns cheerfully and monstrously rubbing their hands whilst repeating their "Eeeeeexcellent" mantra as a result of someone having read his law textbooks is very satisfying, it's just absurd. Also, I doubt many people in positions of responsibility read the David Icke forums.

There is at least one cure for cancer listed at the US patent office and irrefutable proof of all sorts of methods working to cure something as horrible as cancer.

No, there isn't. How pervasive do you think this conspiracy actually is?!

Regarding the conspiracy, let's take you on your word that, indeed, lawyers and judges and academics, etc. are all either concealing information or are ignorant of this FMOTL stuff.

If that's the case, where did they themselves learn about it? FMOTLers claim that not only does every single judge in the country know about this stuff, but even mere police officers on the beat know about it. Okay, fine, but where would they learn about it if there was a concerted effort by academics, judges, etc. to conceal it? Do you see the absurdity of your argument?

[john white]

If that's the case, where did they themselves learn about it? FMOTLers claim that not only does every single judge in the country know about this stuff, but even mere police officers on the beat know about it. Okay, fine, but where would they learn about it if there was a concerted effort by academics, judges, etc. to conceal it? Do you see the absurdity of your argument?

"conspiracy" is simply a red herring. People know what they know. Factors such as compartmentalisation, or on a more basic level carreer status, can massively effect how information is percieved

This entire reality is about perception

What you have not considered is that authority can be educated to become lawful. When a Free Man or Woman stands on the power of their own freedom, the system must either talk on their terms or reject them, either can then be dealt with. But also you must understand the essential nessecity of becoming a lawful human in order to empower ones own freedom

I stress this is not an academic matter or an academic argument

You simply won't "get" it until you realise you are talking to people living in a new state of consciousness

You should expand your vision to percieve this is the David Icke website: you may no doubt dismiss him as some kind of lunatic, but you need to realise he also is a messenger of a true spiritual vision

It is no accident that a mechanism for taking ownership of ones own freedom has a home here on this site

By looking for court records of matters that never get put on record if at all possible you are deliberately choosing to limit your perspective of what may be seen

Perhaps you should look for evidence of Notices being served instead?

[fotheringsmirth]

"conspiracy" is simply a red herring. People know what they know. Factors such as compartmentalisation, or on a more basic level carreer status, can massively effect how information is percieved

This entire reality is about perception

What you have not considered is that authority can be educated to become lawful. When a Free Man or Woman stands on the power of their own freedom, the system must either talk on their terms or reject them, either can then be dealt with. But also you must understand the essential nessecity of becoming a lawful human in order to empower ones own freedom

I stress this is not an academic matter or an academic argument

You simply won't "get" it until you realise you are talking to people living in a new state of consciousness

You should expand your vision to percieve this is the David Icke website: you may no doubt dismiss him as some kind of lunatic, but you need to realise he also is a messenger of a true spiritual vision

It is no accident that a mechanism for taking ownership of ones own freedom has a home here on this site

By looking for court records of matters that never get put on record if at all possible you are deliberately choosing to limit your perspective of what may be seen

Perhaps you should look for evidence of Notices being served instead?

What you just said is that every single person with legal knowledge in the world withholds the information in some way, shape or form for the purposes of furthering their career. You believe that?

[rosix]

fotheringsmirth,
you seemed to have quoted Yo saying something that was posted by me. You are also being incredibly inconsistent ("..then you have some catching up to do before you start opinion on complex legal definitions" - and then saying how useless they all are anyways..) and are providing no proof whatsoever of a lot of what you're saying being true - despite evidence provided by others to the contrary.

My examples from medicine/health were for comparison, which apparently wasn't obvious enough for you, as you have taken it to be something I meant was directly connected to 'this' topic broadly debated in this thread. The little appreciation I could have had left for pretty much any of your posts is obliterated when you seem to fail on so many levels - but I guess you could care less, and good on you for that [honestly].

A lot of us know nothing because we discuss not-so-commonly-accepted/discussed theories and technology? Yet you have not said
one
single
thing
that has been news to my ears/eyes or many others here. You are representing the role of devout uni student studying law quite well I must say - using your brain like the clipboard in a computer's memory, copy+pasting things where you think they apply without actually applying thorough critical process to any of the contents of your clipboard. Have fun..

[fotheringsmirth]

fotheringsmirth,
you seemed to have quoted Yo saying something that was posted by me. You are also being incredibly inconsistent ("..then you have some catching up to do before you start opinion on complex legal definitions" - and then saying how useless they all are anyways..) and are providing no proof whatsoever of a lot of what you're saying being true - despite evidence provided by others to the contrary.

My examples from medicine/health were for comparison, which apparently wasn't obvious enough for you, as you have taken it to be something I meant was directly connected to 'this' topic broadly debated in this thread. The little appreciation I could have had left for pretty much any of your posts is obliterated when you seem to fail on so many levels - but I guess you could care less, and good on you for that [honestly].

A lot of us know nothing because we discuss not-so-commonly-accepted/discussed theories and technology? Yet you have not said
one
single
thing
that has been news to my ears/eyes or many others here. You are representing the role of devout uni student studying law quite well I must say - using your brain like the clipboard in a computer's memory, copy+pasting things where you think they apply without actually applying thorough critical process to any of the contents of your clipboard. Have fun..

I've told you I have reservations with certain things, but the legal system is a system of laws (no shit) and so there really is a right and a wrong answer. If you're arguing that you can opt out of the system as it stands: you're wrong. QED. If I misquoted something as a wrong post then that's just me being stupid with the computer and nothing more. So sorry for that.

[rosix]

I've told you I have reservations with certain things, but the legal system is a system of laws (no shit) and so there really is a right and a wrong answer. If you're arguing that you can opt out of the system as it stands: you're wrong. QED. If I misquoted something as a wrong post then that's just me being stupid with the computer and nothing more. So sorry for that.

More glorious insight..? :confused::confused::confused:

"no shit" - something you take for granted is wrong, that should be alarming should it not? There may be laws in there but there are also corporate policies - 'laws' there primarily to earn revenue. So I would correct you from:

"the legal system is a system of laws (no shit)"
to
"the legal system is a system of laws (and also other shit)"
:)

I can't see where on earth I was arguing that one can opt out of the system as it stands but that is usually a sound tactic in discussion, to pull the focus over to where you have the most amount of support as it were. This may come as a surprise to you, but some people exploring these alternatives to the 'truths' commonly accepted are actually not stupid, with an agenda or 'detached from reality/society'.

Now I'm afraid I will be wasting no more time on you whatsoever as you keep proving more and more how respectively clueless you are.. allow me to focus on your most recent example of what I can at best assume is just farsical pretentiousness:

"QED" would actually require you to have posted proof to accompany your statement.. The fact that you say "are you saying this? if so, you're wrong - QED" - out of context this really doesn't sound like someone who has a clue does it?

No need to apologise for making an error misquoting (it'd be Yo you'd have to apologise to in that case as far as I'm concerned) - I was just clarifying things for you/us.

[fotheringsmirth]

More glorious insight..? :confused::confused::confused:

"no shit" - something you take for granted is wrong, that should be alarming should it not? There may be laws in there but there are also corporate policies - 'laws' there primarily to earn revenue. So I would correct you from:

"the legal system is a system of laws (no shit)"
to
"the legal system is a system of laws (and also other shit)"
:)

I can't see where on earth I was arguing that one can opt out of the system as it stands but that is usually a sound tactic in discussion, to pull the focus over to where you have the most amount of support as it were. This may come as a surprise to you, but some people exploring these alternatives to the 'truths' commonly accepted are actually not stupid, with an agenda or 'detached from reality/society'.

Now I'm afraid I will be wasting no more time on you whatsoever as you keep proving more and more how respectively clueless you are.. allow me to focus on your most recent example of what I can at best assume is just farsical pretentiousness:

"QED" would actually require you to have posted proof to accompany your statement.. The fact that you say "are you saying this? if so, you're wrong - QED" - out of context this really doesn't sound like someone who has a clue does it?

No need to apologise for making an error misquoting (it'd be Yo you'd have to apologise to in that case as far as I'm concerned) - I was just clarifying things for you/us.

If we're talking about debating tactics, a common tactic is also to withdraw from an argument you've lost whilst claiming that you've won.

QED means that it's been demonstrated. Doesn't necessarially mean that it's been demonstrated in this thread, but just in the general legal system as a whole.

It's amazing the amount of knowledge you're willing to claim about a subject you haven't studied against somebody who has. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't go into a mathematics forum, ask a question on calculus and then try and call the person who answered the question a liar or whatever because their answer didn't match up with my uneducated view of mathematics. Why does a different rule apply here? If you could become educated in matters of law through casual browsing of forums and websites then there would be no need for the Universities whatsoever, because people could save money staying at home and becoming experts. It's very satisfying to think that you hold court on legal matters over every single refined legal mind in the country and possibly in history, but it just isn't the case!

Edit: Also, I don't think I've been particularly pretentious in these posts at all. You're asking me questions on relatively basic subjects I happen to know quite a bit about, so I'm writing what I know. If you asked me about some complex matters of intellectual property law I'll happily admit I don't know a damn about it, but this matter I consider myself to have at least some authority.

[john white]

What you just said is that every single person with legal knowledge in the world withholds the information in some way, shape or form for the purposes of furthering their career. You believe that?

LOL no I didnt: not at all

But you must consider your reality is only a model

A construct of electrical signals interpreted by your brain

Mind with always struggle to encompass consciousness:

In fact: it cannot be done, mind is finite

[fotheringsmirth]

LOL no I didnt: not at all

But you must consider your reality is only a model

A construct of electrical signals interpreted by your brain

Mind with always struggle to encompass consciousness:

In fact: it cannot be done, mind is finite

Morpheus?

[rosix]

If we're talking about debating tactics, a common tactic is also to withdraw from an argument you've lost whilst claiming that you've won.

QED means that it's been demonstrated. Doesn't necessarially mean that it's been demonstrated in this thread, but just in the general legal system as a whole.

It's amazing the amount of knowledge you're willing to claim about a subject you haven't studied against somebody who has. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't go into a mathematics forum, ask a question on calculus and then try and call the person who answered the question a liar or whatever because their answer didn't match up with my uneducated view of mathematics. Why does a different rule apply here? If you could become educated in matters of law through casual browsing of forums and websites then there would be no need for the Universities whatsoever, because people could save money staying at home and becoming experts. It's very satisfying to think that you hold court on legal matters over every single refined legal mind in the country and possibly in history, but it just isn't the case!

Edit: Also, I don't think I've been particularly pretentious in these posts at all. You're asking me questions on relatively basic subjects I happen to know quite a bit about, so I'm writing what I know. If you asked me about some complex matters of intellectual property law I'll happily admit I don't know a damn about it, but this matter I consider myself to have at least some authority.

Am I claiming I've won any argument? This isn't some competition to me, otherwise I could put my skills on 'your' side and win far my often.. c'est la vie.

Well people these days may be taught that QED can just be tossed around like you have done, whatever, makes you sound like an ignorant pretentious tool to me - not that I hadn't already figured that out.

I don't think I've claimed any amount of knowledge about any subject - but rest assured I have studied 'law'. Your analogy is hilarious to me - I don't know if you're even aware of how your subconscious mind is working, trying to directly compare law to mathematics and hope that whoever reads will perceive them to share various similar properties (basic weak bullshit manipulation technique).

..wait I'm not gonna go on. Remembered there was a reason I stopped posting in these threads. Maybe one day if we meet, you'll find it harder to keep on dreaming this crap.

but dear almighty universe you use arguments/points I expect from an average 12 year-old girl backed up by about as much as you'd find under her bra.

[ozpixie]

Again you are wrong... I claimed all lawyers are, not corrupt, but part of the conspiracy... number_6 asked for proof, but did NOT dispute my claim, nor did he make a counterclaim... If he HAD made a counterclaim, then I would have to disprove him....

Generally speaking, all lawyers HAVE to know about the whole Admiralty/Maritime Law process and the issue of enjoinment etc. If they did not know about this they would not know how to address the Court and would risk contempt. That does make them part of the conspiracy.

[john white]

Morpheus?

And where do you think that archetype comes from?

Anyway I know you can't understand, and that's why its alright

[yozhik]

*sigh*

Right ... where do we start ...

A lot to go through here, first off, if you don't know what 'understand' means, then you have some catching up to do before you start opinion on complex legal definitions. This is just frivolous and pointless.
fotheringsmirth ... go into the 'real world' for a moment; break the shackles of your textbook world and, for a moment, experience reality ... not the illusion you believe to be reality.

There are examples on here of men and women having spoken with those that are at the frontline [the policy enforcers]; some are very aware of how and why they use the word 'understand'. It is to form a contract. It is to gain agreement that the 'person' they are attempting to contract with stands under their implied authority.

Of course there are examples and situations when 'understand' is used in the sense of 'comprehend'; however, there are also many situations in which it is used in the context of implied 'subordination' and its use in contracts as a means og gaining agreement.

As I have stated elsewhere; the true definition is in its application ... the intent and the effect.

Wake up.
Smell the coffee.

As for this whole 'law dictionary' business. It doesn't matter which legal dictionary you use, because they're all equally worthless. There's a reason judges, academics and lawyers have more than one book in their offices and that's because the law can't be summed up into simple definitions, it needs to be seen as a whole, which is why people study it. For anyone seriously interested in the subject, law dictionaries are absolutely useless for anything other than a jog of the memory.
If they're worthless; why does every law firm have a library full of them?
Enough said.


Acts apply to everyone, not just corporations and juristic persons.
Still arguing from inside your little box?


*sigh* Yes, that is what I'm saying and it's not as absurd as you pretend it is.
Pretend?
Careful ... our learned counsel's arrogance is starting to show ... :rolleyes:

If there were no legal system or government in place, then yes, you would have certain intrinsic rights (and have many more taken away by stronger, more aggressive people who want your things/wife, etc.)
Interesting ...

Your argument implies that once there is a legal system and government, intrinsic rights no longer exist.
Is this your stance?

If so, your attitude is essentially a summation of all that is an illusion.
Man has intrinsic rights but a legal system and government removes them.
Dangerous territory my friend ... dangerous territory indeed.

Is it not the premise of a just legal system and a democratic governance to protect and uphold the rights of every man, woman and child?

I believe the illusion in which you exist is wearing thin ...

with regards to voting, it's a system which requires a lot of effort to set up and sustain, so the fact that you have one obviously shows that it's granted to you.
If it is granted, then it is a privilege/benefit.
If it is a privilege/benefit, then it can be waived.

With regards to other rights that the legal system regards as absolute, try not to think of it so much as being granted something, but rather having the government or legal system taking something away from themselves. I really can't see why anyone except the most devout anarchoprimitivist would see this as a negative.
I'm really not interested in what the 'legal system regards as absolute'.
The 'legal system' is fictional.
However, the day that the 'legal system' can sit down and have a chat over a pint with me; I'll start taking notice of what it regards.
Until that time, I'll call it what it is ... a man made fiction.
It's only as real as man perceives it to be.


Whilst the image of thousands of clones of Mr. Burns cheerfully and monstrously rubbing their hands whilst repeating their "Eeeeeexcellent" mantra as a result of someone having read his law textbooks is very satisfying, it's just absurd. Also, I doubt many people in positions of responsibility read the David Icke forums.
*sigh*

There goes that deep rooted arrogance again.
You call them 'people in positions of responsibility'.
I see most of them as 'close minded illusionists who have exceeded their level of incompetence'.


No, there isn't. How pervasive do you think this conspiracy actually is?!

Regarding the conspiracy, let's take you on your word that, indeed, lawyers and judges and academics, etc. are all either concealing information or are ignorant of this FMOTL stuff.

If that's the case, where did they themselves learn about it? FMOTLers claim that not only does every single judge in the country know about this stuff, but even mere police officers on the beat know about it. Okay, fine, but where would they learn about it if there was a concerted effort by academics, judges, etc. to conceal it? Do you see the absurdity of your argument?
As already pointed out, you have attributed a quote to me, which I am not responsible for ... no need to add to the error.



fotheringsmirth ... I like you. You seem intelligent and respectful. A nice change on here for those who dismiss the FOTL ideologies.

My concern and frustration with you is that you are doing nothing more than arguing from inside a box.
I put it down to years of institutional learning and very little real world knowledge.
There are many people in this world who are book smart but street stupid.
What you are doing is defending and arguing an entrenched paradigm.
Fair enough; you've spent years acknowledging the paradigm and becoming a master of defending it.
All of your legal education has been based on the premise that statutes and Acts are 'law'; that you are the defender of the truth.

Just as Islamic extremists who rap TNT around their waists are taught that what they do is just and righteous; their actions will secure them a privileged place in the afterlife.
Your stance is no different.

Instead of strapping explosives to your body, you clutch legal briefs and those in your profitable industry acknowledge the superiority of men and women who strap black robes and wigs to their body.
The garb may be different [TNT versus robe], but the modus operandi, intent, effect and justification is no different.
The protection of a belief structure at all costs.

You're trapped in a single paradigm with acute myopia; an inability to see beyond the walls that you have consented to being built around you.
For some, like you, the comfort and security that living in a box affords is more than acceptable; its preferable.
More power to you.
If that is your choice, enjoy it.
Why try to enforce it upon others?

You see ... man to man; its not for me.
I do not recognise your belief structure as mine.
I do not understand your stance that rights are intrinsic, but not in the presence of a legal system and/or government.
I believe in free will; in the sovereignty of man.
The created can not be greater than the creator.
A fiction can not have authority over man ... unless man consents.
I comprehend that for you, this world is 'reality'.
What I do not comprehend is your non-acceptance that other worlds exist and that others have the right to choose how they live.

If a man chooses to live peacefully, and wishes no harm to any fellow man; why is it only YOUR world that exists?

Now whilst I enjoy debating with you, I really see no point to it.
We're trying to argue apples versus lemons.
Until you extend the boundaries of your paradigm and either acknowledge the possibility that others exist, or you display some willingness to learn other's beliefs, then it is merely an exercise in futility.

I acknowledge your beliefs; for you and many others, they are real and justified. The world you live in is real to you. It is your reality and it has its own rules and customs. It is built upon your legal system and your institutionalised learning and adherence to policies.

More power to you.

For me, its an illusionary world which has, over time, moved further and further away from the essence of life.

Enjoy your Xmas! :)

[yozhik]

I've told you I have reservations with certain things, but the legal system is a system of laws (no shit) and so there really is a right and a wrong answer. If you're arguing that you can opt out of the system as it stands: you're wrong. QED. If I misquoted something as a wrong post then that's just me being stupid with the computer and nothing more. So sorry for that.

You know that is not true.

'The law' is about probability; not about right and wrong.
'The law' is about legal arguments, pro and con, on any given situation, with the use of precedent, definition and application of statues, to swing the statistical probability of winning the legal debate.

One side out weighing the other with legal argument to bring about a positive judgement in the argument.

'Right and wrong' do not come into it.
The argument is either upheld or dismissed.

There is no 'justice' in Justice.
You have previously mentioned legal positivism, which you should no, is a move away from what is 'moral' and a major shift to what is codified and argued.

If it was about 'right or wrong'; why is the Jury not given full disclosure about their ability and authority to also judge the 'law'?
Regardless of whether the 'person' facing charges is guilty or not guilty, as determined by the ability of their counsel ... if it is a 'bad' law, they can reject it and pass judgement on the 'law' itself.
THAT would be an indication that the courts and the legal system is about determining what is right and what is wrong; so why is it not customary and obligatory for the Jury to receive these instructions?

The answer is simple.
Whilst keeping this law from the Jury - that they have the authority to decide on the law itself, it preserves the illusion that the court is the lawful authority.
Once every man and woman in that Jury learns the truth - they THEY are the lawful authority in the court ... that THEY are the law and the court is merely the venue for THEM to pass judgement, with the judge merely being the impartial referee to the two opposing sides arguing their cases ... then the whole illusion comes crumbling down.

The barristers/solicitors become nothing more than advocates for their clients; a service.
The judge is shown in his/her true light; a referee.
The jury is given its true position; the law.
The 'law' ... Common Law ... being judged by your peers ... becomes primary and at the forefront.

If every man and woman KNEW that they had the authority to judge not just the man or woman before then, but ALSO THE LAW before them; your 'legal system' would look a hell of a lot different.
Your paradigm of 'Parliamentary sovereignty' would also be blown; for it also places man as the authority over statutes and acts ... where they should be.
If your 'Parliamentary sovereign' passes a 'bad law', which your policy enforcers act upon and your profit centres masquerading as courts hear ... then they can all be rejected and dismissed by the jury.
That shows the true position of every man and woman.

Think about that for a moment.
Oh I'm sure you'll come up with some paradigm induced argument from inside you box ... something like; 'they only have this implied authority because it is a privilege parliament has given them ...'

Bullshit.
Utter tosh.

It is an unalienable right man has, simply because parliament is his creation.
The created can NOT be greater than the creator.
Just as man can not be greater than the Creator.

Which is also why lower courts don't have a jury; they don't deal with the law.
The primary concern is [unlawful] legal revenue collection.

[dharmic one]

I for One agree with 99% of what Yozhik posts on these forums and I welcome his input with reverence whatever it contains....

I see that once again, well founded, critical argument has won the day. I never fail to be impressed with the concise logic used to deconstruct his opponent's arguments that he seems to effortlessly wield.

I congratulate you Yozhik on your impartiality and what seems a natural ability of yours to get to the truth as best you can......I am following your thread entitled My Interpretation Of The System very closely and am very grateful for the efforts you constantly make to provide information for others to digest and learn from........

Much peace and love to you.....and Merry Christmas!!

[girlgye]

Yoshik in my view you should consider a career in advocacy and academia for our future survival.

I know we've discussed all this but I see very little point in putting my research forward to teach agents and shills right now. Let those who work for them and pretend to be us do it for them. They can go and watch videos and make of it what they will.

We are much better off doing it the way we have imho.

Yes bit of synchronicity from my mate Peter (not cooney) here today.
Aristotle:

Moral actions come about as a result of habit. We become just, by doing just acts, kind by doing kind acts, brave by doing brave acts.

[asky]

GG WROTE
I see very little point in putting my research forward to teach agents and shills right now.

Im glad to hear it.

asky

[dharmic one]

" Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property - that is his life, liberty and estate, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others.......

.........Because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto punish the offenses of all those of that society, there, and there only, is political society where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection from the law established by it.....whereby it is easy to discern who are, and are not in political society together......

Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to...are in civil society with one another; but those who have no such common appeal. I mean on earth, are still in the state of Nature, each being where there is no other, judge for himself and executioner; which is, as I have before showed it, the perfect state of Nature"


TRUE END OF GOVERNMENT
Of Civil Government etc - John Locke

[zarah]

Am I claiming I've won any argument? This isn't some competition to me, otherwise I could put my skills on 'your' side and win far my often.. c'est la vie.

Well people these days may be taught that QED can just be tossed around like you have done, whatever, makes you sound like an ignorant pretentious tool to me - not that I hadn't already figured that out.

I don't think I've claimed any amount of knowledge about any subject - but rest assured I have studied 'law'. Your analogy is hilarious to me - I don't know if you're even aware of how your subconscious mind is working, trying to directly compare law to mathematics and hope that whoever reads will perceive them to share various similar properties (basic weak bullshit manipulation technique).

..wait I'm not gonna go on. Remembered there was a reason I stopped posting in these threads. Maybe one day if we meet, you'll find it harder to keep on dreaming this crap.

but dear almighty universe you use arguments/points I expect from an average 12 year-old girl backed up by about as much as you'd find under her bra.

Just for the record, he does know what he's talking about from what I've read. The guy comes at this argument from a different angle...there's nothing wrong with that. If you believe so wholeheartedly this concept, then you should take the trouble to explain your point of view to him, like most of the other forum members have done rather than just try to castigate and belittle him.

[zarah]

" Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power not only to preserve his property - that is his life, liberty and estate, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others.......

.........Because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto punish the offenses of all those of that society, there, and there only, is political society where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection from the law established by it.....whereby it is easy to discern who are, and are not in political society together......

Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to...are in civil society with one another; but those who have no such common appeal. I mean on earth, are still in the state of Nature, each being where there is no other, judge for himself and executioner; which is, as I have before showed it, the perfect state of Nature"


TRUE END OF GOVERNMENT
Of Civil Government etc - John Locke

John Locke is one of the people I most admire in history. His view of the world, of governmental power and the power of the governed is one of the reasons I began to study law in the first place.

[fotheringsmirth]

*sigh*

Right ... where do we start ...


fotheringsmirth ... go into the 'real world' for a moment; break the shackles of your textbook world and, for a moment, experience reality ... not the illusion you believe to be reality.

There are examples on here of men and women having spoken with those that are at the frontline [the policy enforcers]; some are very aware of how and why they use the word 'understand'. It is to form a contract. It is to gain agreement that the 'person' they are attempting to contract with stands under their implied authority.



You're implying that I've never spoken to a practising lawyer before, when in fact I'm surrounded by them. It's not like academics and lecturers are just magically brought into existence from the textbook dimension in order to teach us how to be ignorant - they tend to need some experience in the subject they're talking about. Some PhD students that teach a few seminars may not have practised (never been taught by them, though), but I can assure you that pretty much everyone I talk to on this subject either has practised or is still practising. I also know plenty of them through other means (family, etc.) so to say that I've never spoken to a practising lawyer is just patronising and wrong.

If they're worthless; why does every law firm have a library full of them?

I said they were all as worthless as each other. They serve a purpose, but there's a reason you need to read philosophy, case law and whatnot as part of your legal training: because the dictionaries aren't a great resource.

Is it not the premise of a just legal system and a democratic governance to protect and uphold the rights of every man, woman and child?

Actually this is a much better way of putting it than I had previously. These rights aren't granted, but upheld. Yes, they can be taken away, but it's not likely that they will. They are intrinsic and they are upheld by the state (in theory). I'm not going to argue about whether our current government DOES actually uphold them fully, because I think its track record is fairly shocking, but the theoretical discussion we're having here is whether the upholding of rights by a state is a bad thing, which you seem to think it is. I'm arguing that it isn't.

I see what you say about the idea that rights don't really exist until they're granted to you by a government that could take them away and that's all true, but it's a preferable situation to an existence where there is no state to uphold the rights. Obviously not every state upholds the rights properly, but this one does it better than most. If you had no state to grant/uphold the rights, you would have a complete anarchy and you would eventually lose your freedoms entirely.

I'm really not interested in what the 'legal system regards as absolute'.
The 'legal system' is fictional.
However, the day that the 'legal system' can sit down and have a chat over a pint with me; I'll start taking notice of what it regards.
Until that time, I'll call it what it is ... a man made fiction.
It's only as real as man perceives it to be.

I'm surprised anyone's convinced by this at all. It's not fictional just because it's defined upon abstract principles, because ultimately everything is. I don't really see how it's 'fictional', because it's comprised of real people. Judges, lawmakers, philosophers, lawyers, criminals, etc. are REAL people and that's what the legal system is based on. The written word is just a chronicle of things that actually happen, so to argue that it's fictional doesn't seem to make much sense. The 'legal system' is just a model to explain things that happen in the real world regarding legal realities, ain't no fiction about it.

'The law' is about legal arguments, pro and con, on any given situation, with the use of precedent, definition and application of statues, to swing the statistical probability of winning the legal debate.

Advocacy is, the law isn't.

You have previously mentioned legal positivism, which you should no, is a move away from what is 'moral' and a major shift to what is codified and argued.

I know that, but my point was the UK legal system is not based soely upon the concept of Natural Law because the UK is nowadays a secular society.

Whilst keeping this law from the Jury - that they have the authority to decide on the law itself, it preserves the illusion that the court is the lawful authority.
Once every man and woman in that Jury learns the truth - they THEY are the lawful authority in the court ... that THEY are the law and the court is merely the venue for THEM to pass judgement, with the judge merely being the impartial referee to the two opposing sides arguing their cases ... then the whole illusion comes crumbling down.

This isn't something concealed from the jury. The judge directs the jury to make their decision based on the current law. The jury can make any decision they like, but if the decision is so obviously incongruous with the current law then it'll just get appealed. The law is generally decided by Parliament and CA and Supreme Court judges.



I'm going to reiterate the point, because I think probably some of what I said sounds like it's coming from a textbook, which is partially true, but that's not the entire extent of my learning. In fact, I can't stand textbooks for the most part. Most of where I've learned about the law is from discussions with people who are either practising law currently or have practised it.

[rosix]

Most of where I've learned about the law is from discussions with people who are either practising law currently or have practised it.

this is very telling imo

[number_6]

this is very telling imo

But it is more reliable than the rubbish presented as fact in a Menard/Shrout/Harris video.

[dharmic one]

John Locke is one of the people I most admire in history. His view of the world, of governmental power and the power of the governed is one of the reasons I began to study law in the first place.

Would you agree that the study of law, as fotheringsmirth contends, is just as much about philosophy as well as the codified system of authority in place? I think it is only a matter of time before impartial study of the law encroaches upon theism and philosophy. Do you think that the study of law is restricted by either experience of practicing it or a standard of education that is beyond the reach of the majority?

Because I think, not referring to your posts here, nor anyone's in particular, in fact I ask these questions of the whole forum, many from the "I know lots of lawyers and they disagree" POV tend to confer authority of knowledge only upon those that may have received or been lucky by birth or industrious enough to attain qualifications from the very system most that want freedom would seek to oppose.......I also believe that from any point of view, no matter how much money or effort it may have cost to obtain, knowledge is limited. It is the obstinate refusal, albeit a subconscious one, on the part of many who would claim to be an authority, to accept their limits of knowledge that is, ironically, the obstacle to their further learning.



Yes, they can be taken away, but it's not likely that they will. They are intrinsic and they are upheld by the state (in theory). I'm not going to argue about whether our current government DOES actually uphold them fully, because I think its track record is fairly shocking, but the theoretical discussion we're having here is whether the upholding of rights by a state is a bad thing, which you seem to think it is. I'm arguing that it isn't.

Intinsic–adjective
1. belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
2. Anatomy. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to or lying within a given part.

I think you are right here. Man's rights are intrinsic. But if that is so, how can they then be lawfully taken away by anything other than a man's consent? Consent being something that , though intrinsic to the structure of a civil society, not many advocates of the system as it is tend to discuss.

You have also touched on the difference between our opinions on the law and whether or not we think the executive is doing a good job at administering it. You argue that it is a good thing that the state upholds our rights and I agree with that. But I would not agree that arbitrary power coerced by a phenomenally resourceful corporate elite is anything but an upholding of the rights of man. I believe that is the state of government today. One that 60 years ago Mussolini would have described as fascist.

I also emboldened "in theory" because I understand all laws of man to be theory. Their existence does not preclude them being broken. They are therefore theories that carry the weight of the opinions of the masses. When the majority choose to act contrary to these theories, they change and revolution begins.

I see what you say about the idea that rights don't really exist until they're granted to you by a government that could take them away and that's all true, but it's a preferable situation to an existence where there is no state to uphold the rights. Obviously not every state upholds the rights properly, but this one does it better than most. If you had no state to grant/uphold the rights, you would have a complete anarchy and you would eventually lose your freedoms entirely.

Anarchy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

It is my view that many thrust this upon those who would argue for individual sovereignty, emphasizing the negative, abhorrent disorder connotations and interpretations of the word that the 4th definition describes -indeed, this has become the 1st definition in many people's minds of the word. This is the trick of the con man and exactly the manipulation of language that the executive are so talented at.

Most authorities would not hesitate to provide us with any notion other than that without them society would naturally descend into chaos. Many overlook the 3rd definition and prefer to argue the correlation between the 1st and 4th definitions.

The crux of this argument is that used by many a justifications of kingly or princely right to rule as well as those favouring any autonomous power such as parliament. Which, thanks to the promulgation of Frued's arguments that man is by nature a cruel, sadistic, antisocial animal that must be governed and controlled, ( which gave rise through his nephew to a new form of socialism PR and consumerism ) is the basis of the government's justification of it's own existence. So who, with any sort of enjoyment of such power over another promote anything but the growth of their own power? All of it again based on one thing....FEAR.

Are they among us in parliament? I don't think so. It is time for the people to remember that it is they who have the power over their own destinies, not some arbitrary policy maker acting on their, in many many cases, tacit consent to be governed.

The 'legal system' is just a model to explain things that happen in the real world regarding legal realities, ain't no fiction about it.

I contend that a model cannot have supreme, unquestionable and unlimited authority over it's creator, it being composed of abstract principles and form, rather than substance and life that is intrinsic to man. I think here is the creation of fiction - not in the sense that it is not true or applicable, but that it is in a sense, abstract or not real, it is a creation of the mind of men. How can it therefore have the power over men lawfully without their consent? without it becoming inevitably, tyrannical or despotic?


my point was the UK legal system is not based solely upon the concept of Natural Law because the UK is nowadays a secular society.



I agree with you here. It is not solely based on Natural Law. But I contend that at the foundation of all man made law is that of nature and reason. Therefore the "default setting" if you like of man's societal consciousness is this state of nature that Locke speaks of. We, one and all, have not only the right but the very means intrinsic to our nature that are inalienable, unless we consent otherwise, to remove ourselves from or alter as we wish our allegiance to any society, especially if one feels betrayed by their authorities, as I believe many people do around the world.

You have much to bring to the debate and I look forward to hearing your views on this......

Peace and love to everyone.....

[rosix]

But it is more reliable than the rubbish presented as fact in a Menard/Shrout/Harris video.

don't get me wrong, just because anything is in a text-book doesn't make it true either. What is 'telling' is that I originally quoted added to the fact a lot of lawyers when they're done getting their piece of paper, are told among the first things at their law firm to "forget everything you learnt at uni".

also, lumping Harris with Shrout is like lumping fotheringsmirth with a Supreme Court judge as far as I'm concerned, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[number_6]

also, lumping Harris with Shrout is like lumping fotheringsmirth with a Supreme Court judge as far as I'm concerned, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Are you suggesting that when comparing Harris with Shrout one of them is much more accomplished?

[yozhik]

You're implying that I've never spoken to a practising lawyer before, when in fact I'm surrounded by them.
Thank you for stating the bleeding obvious.
Are you implying that 'talking to lawyers' or being surrounded by them, is livng in the real world?

Not only do you appear to have an entrenched paradigm, you also have an incredibly narrow view of the world!

For anyone to say I'm surrounded by lawyers, have spoken to many lawyers, listened to many lawyers, have learnt from many lawyers and have experienced many lawyers from many different branches of the law ... therefore I have an extensive and broad outlook on life ...

Well ... fuck me ... is all I can say.


It's not like academics and lecturers are just magically brought into existence from the textbook dimension in order to teach us how to be ignorant - they tend to need some experience in the subject they're talking about. Some PhD students that teach a few seminars may not have practised (never been taught by them, though), but I can assure you that pretty much everyone I talk to on this subject either has practised or is still practising. I also know plenty of them through other means (family, etc.) so to say that I've never spoken to a practising lawyer is just patronising and wrong.
Lawyers, law, legal system, PhD in law, legal philosophy, law textbooks, law seminars, family of lawyers, law academics ...

Yes, yes ... I stand corrected ... your knowledge is vast and worldy ... as long as its about 'indoctrinated law' as parroted from institutions ... :rolleyes:

I said they were all as worthless as each other. They serve a purpose, but there's a reason you need to read philosophy, case law and whatnot as part of your legal training: because the dictionaries aren't a great resource.
What is it about 'arguing inside a box' and an 'immovable paradigm' do you not comprehend?

Actually this is a much better way of putting it than I had previously. These rights aren't granted, but upheld. Yes, they can be taken away, but it's not likely that they will.
Not if they're unalienable they can't.
Upholding them means to respect them and recognise them.
Taking them away, by definition, requires the rights to have been given ... which again by definition makes them benefits/privileges ... not unalienable/intrinsic rights.

It is illogical to state;
"Yes, you have intrinsic rights ... but I can remove them."

From where does the authority to 'take' that which was not 'granted'?

They are intrinsic and they are upheld by the state (in theory).
Whether 'they are upheld by the state' or not, matters not.
It does not mean they do not exist.

The state has a choice to uphold them or not.
That choice does not determine whether or not the rights exist; it only determines whether they are rcognised and respected.

The existence of intrinsic, natural and unalienable rights is not dependent on the state. In fact, it could be strongly argued that the state, in its claim to being a 'just and moral societal form' is reliant on the existence of rights. For a state without a foundation of men and women with intrinsic rights, exercising and respecting those rights, will neither be just nor will it be moral.

I'm not going to argue about whether our current government DOES actually uphold them fully, because I think its track record is fairly shocking, but the theoretical discussion we're having here is whether the upholding of rights by a state is a bad thing, which you seem to think it is. I'm arguing that it isn't.
No; I'm not arguing its a bad thing at all.
I'm arguing that it is irrelevant in terms of the rights existing.


I see what you say about the idea that rights don't really exist until they're granted to you by a government that could take them away and that's all true, but it's a preferable situation to an existence where there is no state to uphold the rights.
You're back inside that box again ...

Remove 'the state' for a moment.
What do you have?

You have an opportunity for there to be men and women, with intrinsic rights, who agree to live harmoniously, respecting the intrinsic rights they have and claim as being unalienable and the premise for their cohabitation.

It doesn't require 'the state' to uphold them.
All it requires is the consent of responsible men and women to make that decision themselves ... 'the state' is superfluous.
It is a passenger, although as it so happens, the current situation is that 'the state' is not only a passenger expecting a free ride, it is demanding to be the driver of the bus.

The rights exist, with or without 'the state'.
Men and women can be guided by their consent and respect of those rights, without the intervention of the state; that's called being 'responsible adults', and not relying on freeloading Nanny State.


Obviously not every state upholds the rights properly, but this one does it better than most.
This reinforces my previous point.
The rights exist, whether or not they are upheld by the state.

I do not comprehend your logic on this matter.

It is the performance [or lack of] of the state that is questionable.
Some uphold the rights; some don't.
As a responsible adult with freewill and sovereign authority to grant or deny my consent, I also have the RIGHT to choose whether I want to be part of a society, or not.

If you had no state to grant/uphold the rights, you would have a complete anarchy and you would eventually lose your freedoms entirely.

Thats illogical.
The rights exist, with or without the state [as you have already agreed].
'A complete anarchy', I assume, means the non-existence of 'the state' with your original concept of 'parliamentary sovereignty'.

How does this lead to 'losing freedoms'?
Unless you mean that there would be an aggressive act to steal them ...

Your logic isn't logical.


I'm surprised anyone's convinced by this at all. It's not fictional just because it's defined upon abstract principles, because ultimately everything is. I don't really see how it's 'fictional', because it's comprised of real people. Judges, lawmakers, philosophers, lawyers, criminals, etc. are REAL people and that's what the legal system is based on.
There goes your incredibly narrow view of the world again ...

But ... look ... here's the deal;
Let's agree that the 'legal system' is the universe for 'judges, lawmakers, philosophers, lawyers and criminals' ...

I have no issue with this at all; they can have it.

On this point you and I wholeheartedly agree.
That is who belongs in that world ... the legal system as an exclusive and elitist realm, for the judges, lawmakers, philosophers, lawyers and criminals.

I am none of those; I am man.
That world is a fiction to me and has no claim over me.
It is one of man's creations ... it has about as much authority over me as a bowl of ice cream.

The written word is just a chronicle of things that actually happen, so to argue that it's fictional doesn't seem to make much sense.
Do you think about what you say before actually typing it?

A chronicle?
All written word is fictional ... it is a representation of an event or an entity, but is not the event nor the entity itself.

Is your birth certificate you?
[had to slip that one in there ... :rolleyes:]

The 'legal system' is just a model to explain things that happen in the real world regarding legal realities, ain't no fiction about it.
Huh?
It's a model ... its not real.
It was created ... by man.
It only exists in the form it is perceived, as it has no tangible form in itself.

This isn't something concealed from the jury. The judge directs the jury to make their decision based on the current law.
Is it your position that the jury does not have the authority to judge the law itself?
Is it your position that if a jury deems the law itself to be unlawful; they can make a decision on that basis?

Is it your position that all judges make this known to the jury?

[yozhik]

Are you suggesting that when comparing Harris with Shrout one of them is much more accomplished?

Do you always asked loaded questions?
:rolleyes:

[number_6]

Do you always asked loaded questions?
:rolleyes:

Not intentionally. But I do wonder why Harris v Shrout is comparable to fotheringsmirth v a Supreme Court Judge, is there an alternative explanation?

[yozhik]

Not intentionally. But I do wonder why Harris v Shrout is comparable to fotheringsmirth v a Supreme Court Judge, is there an alternative explanation?

How about 'experienced' instead of 'accomplished'?
Would that be an alternative explanation?

How about 'older' versus 'younger'; another alternative explanation.
There is always 'poorer' versus 'wealthier'; a comparison the system junkies are sure to appreciate.

Given Harris works outside, I would suggest 'physically fitter' might be an option ... and presumably fotheringsmirth has youth on his side and so probability sways the pendulum his way in terms of likelihood of being more physically fit than your average Supreme Court Judge ... so we could also add 'physical fitness' to the possible comparisons.

Naive is another that springs immediately to mind; which along with 'experience', I would suggest are the most appropriate.

All of these may be applicable to;
Harris v Shrout
fotheringsmirth v Supreme Court judge

Harris and fotheringsmirth might be described as being [supposedly] less experienced, younger, poorer, more naive and fitter than their Shrout and Judge counterparts.
There are probably dozens of equally valid criteria on which the comparison is valid.

Maybe another highly relevant and simplistic example of constrictive paradigms versus thinking outside an indoctrinated and institutionalised belief system ...
:rolleyes:

[hypha]

They will lie until rebutted, they assume until found out, they don't stop with a "Yes" or "Silence" but wait for you to prove a "No", the trap is only in the Mind yet ones are Bound by chains of fear and desire. Parliament = More BS to Enforce Sheepism from the the Wolf Shepherd - "suck on these nipples" until you know they are foul. as Foul as the Lie is Told. The more you complain the More fancy their nipples are. x