Deliberately so.
Thanks for these explanations @Rich and @RobG. Makes the ‘legal system’ look shoogly in theory, though the reality is we are still ruled by power.
As regards how this plays out in practice, I remember many years ago reading an account by Milan Rai (an international antiwar activist), together with a colleague who decided, when arrested for something in connection with their protest, to withhold their dates of birth. The result was unexpected (so Rai professed 
) - it seemed to throw the courts into a tizz, with everything being held up - precisely at the point where they were supposed to confirm their names (which they did) and D.O.B. (which they kept declining). After a two brief appearancres in court they were released without…anything at all. I didn’t understand this, but in the light of what you are saying it sounds like what may have happened is that by not acceding to the demand for acceptance of the ‘legal system’, it kept the charge in the realms of the common law, or something like that. It seemed the case simply could not proceed, anyway!
Rob re Australia fines, I presume this is it:
Australia to withdraw or refund tens of thousands of COVID fines
SYDNEY, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Australia’s largest state will withdraw or refund tens of thousands of fines issued during the COVID pandemic after government lawyers conceded on Tuesday that some fines were invalid in a test case brought by a legal advocacy group.
Australian states and territories instituted strict restrictions during the pandemic, including limits on travel and movement outside the home. Police in New South Wales, the largest state, could issue fines of A$1,000 ($670.60) to individuals who breached public health orders.
Redfern Legal Centre, a free legal service, launched a test case in July on behalf of three plaintiffs arguing their fines of between A$1,000 to A$3,000, were invalid because the penalty notices did not sufficiently describe the offence.
Government lawyers conceded the plaintiff’s fines did not meet legal requirements in a hearing at the New South Wales Supreme Court on Tuesday.
…
Cheers
[quote=“Evvy_dense, post:22, topic:3135”]
As regards how this plays out in practice, I remember many years ago reading an account by Milan Rai (an international antiwar activist), together with a colleague who decided, when arrested for something in connection with their protest, to withhold their dates of birth. The result was unexpected (so Rai professed ) - it seemed to throw the courts into a tizz, with everything being held up - precisely at the point where they were supposed to confirm their names (which they did) and D.O.B. (which they kept declining). After a two brief appearancres in court they were released without…anything at all.
[/quote]
Perhaps Milan Rai and his friend understood CL? By refusing to comply and give their DOB they ensured the court (a corporation) couldn’t joinder with their legal fiction (a corporation). There was therefore no contract. Corporation A cannot do business with Corporation B without a contract.
But, Case “Law” and Statute “Law” are part and parcel of the law of the jungle. Case “Law” and Statute “Law” are Maritime Law which doesn’t apply to a living man/woman on the land unless the living man/woman agrees to contract using their legal fiction. The magistrates courts, crown courts, high courts, governments etc are all corporations and can only contract with your legal fiction which is also a corporation. Most living men and women allow the court (a corporation) to contract with their legal fiction (a corporation) without even realising that they are accepting the courts offer to contract. If you refuse to comply, refuse to contract, you’re free to go.
The only real law is Common Law i.e. do no wrong. I.e cause no harm, cause no loss, cause no fraud, cause no breach of the peace.
“Government” by the way means mind control.
This excellent video from The Common Law Lawyer website explains Common Law very clearly in only 40 minutes.
1 Like
Hey Rob. You’re right about the care workers here in UK but the “guidance” (yeah, right) was withdrawn. I gather the main reason was that certain workers resigned rather than accept the conditions and employing new people was not as easy as was anticipated. The pay is crap, for a start. Sweet young Polish girls and other Europeans not as plentiful as they used to be . . . for some reason . . .
But that is anecdotal, I stress, and absolutely not the real reason.
Interesting approach! Well done.
I appealed one of those supermarket car parks “overstayed your time” penalty charges (they don’t call it a fine). I said was tewwibly feak and weeble and was held up the doctor’s blah blah blah with a copy to the store manager (with photo of shop receipt to prove at least I’d gone in the shop).
Like a big wuss.
But the penalty was overturned very quickly.
Roughly once month we get menacing letters from the TV license people saying that “the case” has been escalated and their inspectors with Rottweilers will be 'round very very soon so consider yourself warned, mate. Or that’s what the first few said. Straight into file 13 ever since. I do half hope that one will knock on the door just for a bit of sport.
3 Likes
Rich, I’m all onboard with Common Law. Thing is - and I don’t wish to be on a downer - Common Law has never been used successfully in any court of law, anywhere in the world (in a major sense); because of course ‘they’ run the system and make up their own laws.
You can of course trip them up now and again.
The problem, for me, seems to be consensus. If enough people buy into the bullshit, the bullshit will continue.
We are all fundamentally free, if we want to be, and should all own the Commons (air, water, earth). yet many people are brainwashed into believing that they have to pay someone in order to exist.
Common Law addresses this, but it doesn’t address the reality we live in.
2 Likes
Rich, I’m all onboard with Common Law. Thing is - and I don’t wish to be on a downer - Common Law has never been used successfully in any court of law, anywhere in the world (in a major sense); because of course ‘they’ run the system and make up their own laws.
Common Law challenges and exposes that system as a fabrication. If one or a hundred or a thousand PCN’s can be successfully challenged, and then withdrawn by the parking company, then ALL PCN’s can be withdrawn using the same challenge. This would cause problems to the parking industry in a major sense lol!
You can of course trip them up now and again.
You could trip them up all the time if enough people knew about CL.
The problem, for me, seems to be consensus. If enough people buy into the bullshit, the bullshit will continue.
Yes, so also the problem is ignorance of CL.
We are all fundamentally free, if we want to be, and should all own the Commons (air, water, earth). yet many people are brainwashed into believing that they have to pay someone in order to exist.
I agree.
Common Law addresses this, but it doesn’t address the reality we live in.
CL can change the reality we live in and they (the corporations) live in.
1 Like
SYDNEY, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Australia’s largest state will withdraw or refund tens of thousands of fines issued during the COVID pandemic after government lawyers conceded on Tuesday that some fines were invalid in a test case brought by a legal advocacy group.
Australian states and territories instituted strict restrictions during the pandemic, including limits on travel and movement outside the home. Police in New South Wales, the largest state, could issue fines of A$1,000 ($670.60) to individuals who breached public health orders.
IIUC freedom of travel and movement is an inalienable right for all living men and living women. No fines could have been lawfully issued to any living man or living woman. The state of new south wales is a corporation and can only do business by joinder with another corporation. If the living man or woman did not joinder then no fine could have been lawfully issued.
Redfern Legal Centre, a free legal service, launched a test case in July on behalf of three plaintiffs arguing their fines of between A$1,000 to A$3,000, were invalid because the penalty notices did not sufficiently describe the offence.
The fines were unlawful because there was no offence committed - freedom of travel and movement is an inalienable right for all living men and living women.
100%!
I tried my CL notice with TVL about four years back just to see if it would work. They stopped addressing me by my name (in capitals?) after that and all the following letters are addressed to The Legal Occupier. I still get silly threats from them such as “we’re in your postcode area this week” and “will you be in on Thursday at 6pm?” etc. All binned. A CL expert told me once that if they step over the threshhold without a warrant while they’re talking to you you’re justified in using physical violence in self defence. I asked if I’d be justified in wacking the fucker’s foot with a hammer and she said yes! However they can walk in if you’ve left the front door open apparently.
1 Like
Rich, let’s be honest about this: the only law comes from a gun barrel. It’s always been so.
If you want to promote common law (which I’m all in favour of) you are going to have to defend it with extreme violence, because, obviously, you are up against a bunch of complete psychos who have ruled our world for God knows how long.
3 Likes
Exactly, Rob! The logic and reasonableness of CL theory doesn’t amount to much when you have a ruling establishment who are all steadfastly behind the usual, violence-enforced legal arrangements, and where the professionally-violent establishment bulldogs - the police and military - stick loyally with the establishment view of things.
This is what you get almost everywhere, almost all the time, in the real world; the only normal exceptions being what Lenin call “the festivals of the people”; that’s to say: revolutions.
When you rely on the theoretical rightness and superiority of CL, you need a judiciary which will respect the arguments, and an enforcement arm which accepts that it must abide by them; which you have where, exactly…?
2 Likes
Rhis, I’ve only ever been in a magistrates court on two occasions. Suffice to say it was all very minor stuff, that I won’t bore you with.
Back in the day (no idea if they still do this) they used to pin up in the court entrance a list of the day’s events. They never gave prisoner names, only numbers, yet they did list the crimes they were being charged for.
Thus if you were contesting a parking fine you would often find yourself in a court that on the same day was dealing with murderers and rapists, and all the heavy duty stuff. You were treated no differently from the murderers and rapists.
I have never been convicted of anything, and tend to avoid the law like the plague (likewise with government in general).
Some interesting posts.
Violence, not the gun, is what the rule of law is. The gun is merely a tool for violence.
The common law stuff is tempting, if only just to be a ball ache for companies.
For my experience with the law, the most useful thing is the phrase “No comment” They changed the caution wording due to people doing this (may harm is not will harm (the sneaky shits)). This is will help your case immensely. You are not required to answer anything if you don’t want to. Sadly, this only really applies to criminal law.
Do not use the duty solicitor unless no other option is available.
1 Like