The damage this freeman garbage is doing

[enquirer]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

If Common Law precedes statute law, then how can it refer to what has yet to exist?

[enquirer]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

SO WHAT I AM ASKING IS WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE ARE PROMOTING, AND PEOPLE BELIEVING THIS GARBAGE WITH NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION

Straight question, straight answer.

Because people increasingly think that the legal system stinks and so do those who support it.

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

If Common Law precedes statute law, then how can it refer to what has yet to exist?

Because Common Law is a living organism that evolves over time. It was once not an offence to kill another human being. Common Law evolved to remedy that situation and created the offence of murder.

If it is accepted that the Common Law existed before statute, and is still accepted to be valid, then surely the more sensible question would be "how can statute be supreme in the face of a preceding legal system?" the answer is that the Common Law recognises it as such.

[bluebottle]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

The only Common Law offences I can recall are -

Murder
Perverting the Course of Justice
Conspiracy to Defraud (Common Law)
Breach of the Peace

[labman]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

A few you may have overlooked :-)) OK! I cheated - see attached pdf! lol (Quite a handy document though)

Manslaughter
Kidnapping
False Imprisonment
Permitting an escape
Rescue
Escaping from lawful custody without force
Breach of prison
Acts outraging public decency
Keeping a disorderly house
Embracery
Fabrication of evidence with intent to mislead a tribunal
Personation of jurors

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

Yes, the above are all Common Law offences but there are many more doctrines or principles of the Common Law that are not in themselves offences.

Remember that the Law of Contract is still based and the CL doctrine of freedom of contract, to the extent that statute hasn't displaced the principle for example with regards to consumer contracts.

[bluebottle]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

A few you may have overlooked :-)) OK! I cheated - see attached pdf! lol (Quite a handy document though)

Manslaughter
Kidnapping
False Imprisonment
Permitting an escape
Rescue
Escaping from lawful custody without force
Breach of prison
Acts outraging public decency
Keeping a disorderly house
Embracery
Fabrication of evidence with intent to mislead a tribunal
Personation of jurors

Many thanks for that interesting, enlightening and useful post, Labman. The offence of "Fabrication of Evidence with Intent to Mislead A Tribunal" could be used to significant effect against the DWP and ATOS. They are at it all the time.

[gravytrain]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

Yes, the above are all Common Law offences but there are many more doctrines or principles of the Common Law that are not in themselves offences.

Remember that the Law of Contract is still based and the CL doctrine of freedom of contract, to the extent that statute hasn't displaced the principle for example with regards to consumer contracts.

This is very true, in fact much legislature codifies the principles of common law, a lot of the consumer credit act for instance uses common law precepts of formation of contract.

[enquirer]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

... the answer is that the Common Law recognises it as such.

You are put to proof.

[bluebottle]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

This is very true, in fact much legislature codifies the principles of common law, a lot of the consumer credit act for instance uses common law precepts of formation of contract.

It appears that Common Law is the basis of most areas of English Law. It's just that our elected representatives have made up barmy statute laws over the years.

[Guest]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

I wouldn't discard everything the FOLs say
Example of something the FOLs have taught me: judicial Oath of Office:

I, (name), do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

Whether you can demand to hear a judge repeat his oath before or during a hearing:
There is a law governing this. You can read about it, along with some other comments on that subject, here.
But I think one could simply appeal if he or she acted out of accord with it.
Funny how FOL looks so close to FOOLS, with my apologies to our good friends the FOLs!
Whether the FOLs' method of challenge has always been perfect remains to be seen.
My own at my recent case probably wasn't perfect because I didn't challenge the judge at all.
But my hearing wasn't public, and the judge wouldn't let me record, and didn't discuss much WITH me.
Not really a public and fair trial, nor impartial and certainly not independent, relying heavily on precedent.
Which leads me back to my own reading of the Human Rights Act, online.

We all need each other. That's my judgement.
Without FOLs, as Legal Beagles including you, miliitant, I would remain in a dark cloud of ignorance myself.

Speaking of ignorance, I wonder what 'usages' refers to, in the Oath of Office?

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

I wouldn't discard everything the FOLs say
Example of something the FOLs have taught me: judicial Oath of Office:

I, (name), do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

Whether you can demand to hear a judge repeat his oath before or during a hearing:
There is a law governing this. You can read about it, along with some other comments on that subject, here.
But I think one could simply appeal if he or she acted out of accord with it.
Funny how FOL looks so close to FOOLS, with my apologies to our good friends the FOLs!
Whether the FOLs' method of challenge has always been perfect remains to be seen.
My own at my recent case probably wasn't perfect because I didn't challenge the judge at all.
But my hearing wasn't public, and the judge wouldn't let me record, and didn't discuss much WITH me.
Not really a public and fair trial, nor impartial and certainly not independent, relying heavily on precedent.
Which leads me back to my own reading of the Human Rights Act, online.

We all need each other. That's my judgement.
Without FOLs, as Legal Beagles including you, miliitant, I would remain in a dark cloud of ignorance myself.

Speaking of ignorance, I wonder what 'usages' refers to, in the Oath of Office?

David Icke is a moron peddling pseudo legal paranoia and conpiracy theories. Icke wouldn't know the law if it jumped up and bit him on the nose, so forgive me if I don't take something from his forum as gospel.

As to your case - if you had challenged the judge along any such lines (or any other FMOL tactics, for that matter), it would have failed. Judge's are not required to repeat any oath in court.

There are very slight glimmers of truth buried somewhere very very deep in the FMOL thing, but it is buried so deep and is so tiny that it is of no real worth - the movement is just plain nonsense. It doesn't make any sense, it is illogical and when you ask a FMOL about a particular point which goes against their theories they will just shout you down and/or try and confuse you with "technical" mumbo jumbo.

More importantly, in the real world, IT DOESN'T WORK!!! The only sense in which it can possibly be said to work is insomuch as it delays the inevitable, increasing costs along the way.

You say that your case was relying heavily on precedent? The English Common Law System is based on a hierarchical precedent system.

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

You are put to proof.

I came across it whilst I was studying Public Law around 2 or 3 years ago - I accept your challenge and I will endeavour to find the literature. When I have, I will post details.

[UnitedFront]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

You are put to proof.

The following extract is from page 117 of the ninth edition of the academic text "Constitutional & Administrative Law" by Hilaire Barnett, published in 2011 by Routlage.

The Source of Sovereignty in the United Kingdom

The sovereignty of Parliament is not itself laid down in statute: nor could it be, for the ultimate law maker cannot confer upon itself the ultimate power. As legal theorists⁸ have demonstrated, when searching for ultimate legal power, there comes a point of inquiry beyond which one cannot logically move. In order to understand the ultimate authority of law the inquirer must must move beyond the law itself. The key to understanding parliamentary sovereignty lies in its acceptance - but not necessarily moral approval - by judges within the legal system. Sovereignty is therefore a fundamental rule of the common law, for it is the judges who uphold Parliament's sovereignty. For as long as the judges accept sovereignty of Parliament, sovereignty will remain the ultimate rule of the constitution. As Salmond explains:

"All rules of law have historical sources. As a matter of fact and history they have their origin somehwere, though we may not know what it is. But not all of them have legal sources... But whence comes the rule that Acts of Parliament have the force of law? This is legally ultimate; its source is historical only, not legal... It is the law because it is the law, and for no other reason that it is possible for the law to take notice of. No statute can confer this power upon Parliament, for this would be to assume and act on the very power that is to be conferred."⁹

Accordingly, the rule that confers validity on legislation is 'logically superior to the sovereign'. The logical consequence of this is stated by HWR Wade:

"... if no statute can establish the rule that the courts obey Acts of Parliament, similarly no statute can alter or abolish that rule. The rule is above and beyond the reach of statute... because it is itself the source of the authority of statute."¹⁰

The sovereignty of Parliament will only be lost under two conditions. The first condition would be where Parliament decided - perhaps on the authority of the people tested in a referendum - to abolish its sovereignty and to place its residual authority under that of a written constitution to be adjudicated upon by the judiciary. The second condition would be where the judiciary itself underwent a 'revolution' in attitude, and accepted that Parliament was no longer the sovereign law-making body and that the judges owed allegiance to an alternative - or different - sovereign power.
_________________
8 See Kelsen, 1961, p 116; Hart, 1961, p 104. See also Kelsen, 'The function of a constitution', in Tur and Twinning, 1986.

9 Williams (ed), Jurisprudence, 10th edn, p 155, cited by Wade, 1955, p 187.

10 Wade, 'Introduction', in Dicey, 1885, 1959 edn.

[Guest]

Re: The damage this freeman garbage is doing

The right of the sovereign to impeccability lasts as long as she is fair.
Round applause to the legal system.
Now may I finish my thread?

FOLs have a lot to offer
Many go where angels fear to tread
David isn't a distant cousin of some lunar hypocrisy
And Detius isn't dead.