Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What criminal offence?
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
BicycleRepairMan
Scenario:

I need to present a legal document to an ex employer

I turn up at there Registered Office, and explain I need a signature to prove service.

The boss declines to come out and sign for it. He says I dont need a signature.

I refuse to go unless he does sign for it, as its important to be able to prove service.

He calls the police, since i wont leave without a sig.

Provided i commit no breach of the peace, and stay within Common Law, what can the police do if they turn up? What if i ask the police if they are attending on there oath as peace oficers under common law? If im trespassing, is that not a civil problem (as they as so fond of telling us when we try and stop clampers and they wont intervene)?
southpaw82
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 - 20:54) *
What if i ask the police if they are attending on there oath as peace oficers under common law?


They'll probably be [slightly] more confused than I am.

This is the way it goes with trespassers when you attend as a police officer:

1. You say you won't intervene. You point out to the occupier that they can use reasonable force to remove the trespasser. The moment the trespasser resists (actively or passively) there's a breach of the peace - they get nicked.

2. You ask the trespasser to leave as you believe their presence will amount to a BoP when the occupier tries to remove them. They refuse. They get nicked for obstruct police.

3. You wait until the trespasser commits a public order offence. They get nicked.
BicycleRepairMan
Ok thanks for that.

Now, how would Common Law Assault enter into this? Surely by touching the alleged trespasser, the Boss comitts a common law assault on the alleged trespasser? Both in the common law and under statute, the actus reus of a common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury.
southpaw82
No. Assault is "intentionally or recklessly putting another in fear of the immediate application of unlawful force". Battery is "the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another".

Unlawful force. Ejecting a trespasser using reasonable force isn't unlawful.
The Rookie
Just post it special or recorded - or do you have a different agenda than actually serving the document?

Simon
BicycleRepairMan
Ok one last point

In DPP v. Taylor, DPP v. Little [1992] 1 QB 645, 95 Cr.App.R. 28, it was held that common assault is a statutory offence, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Later, in Haystead v. DPP 164 JP 396, DC, the Divisional court expressed the obiter opinion that common assault remains a common law offence.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/181.html

What practical difference does this make ?
southpaw82
Practically, none - however, I'm of the opinion that all s. 39 CJA 88 did was to make common assault (contrary to common law) a summary only offence. It has since been charged as assault/assault by beating contrary to s. 39 but should (IMO) be charged as assault/battery contrary to common law.

What have you been charged with?
BicycleRepairMan
No, im just trying to grasp some aspects of this scenario, its all hypothetical.
southpaw82
In that case, it ought to be in the Flame Pit... oh, wait...
andy_foster
Statute and common law are simply the 2 major sources of law. Unless there is an apparent conflict, it doesn't matter whether a particular law is common law or statute. It is still law. The biggest practical difference is that it is easier for the man in the street to find the precise wording of statute.

As an individual, you have absolutely no power to require someone else to sign a certificate of service. If you feel that you need a signature, that is your own misfortune.
captain swoop
QUOTE
What if i ask the police if they are attending on there oath as peace oficers under common law?


You haven't been reading 'Freeman on the Land' sites have you?
fatboytim
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 - 20:54) *
Scenario:

I need to present a legal document to an ex employer

I turn up at there Registered Office, and explain I need a signature to prove service.

The boss declines to come out and sign for it. He says I dont need a signature.

I refuse to go unless he does sign for it, as its important to be able to prove service.

He calls the police, since i wont leave without a sig.



You say "good idea! A constable would be an excellent witness to prove service, I'll just wait over here"

If it's a registered office of a company, IIRC all that should be necessary is service at the registered office.



fatboytim

BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 - 23:06) *
QUOTE
What if i ask the police if they are attending on there oath as peace oficers under common law?


You haven't been reading 'Freeman on the Land' sites have you?



I might have been wink.gif

I was wondering what difference it would make. I watched an intersting video where they were attempting to throw a guy out of a Mags Court, the Police turned up, he uttered the magic words and the police stood back and took no further part.
the_devil
QUOTE
I was wondering what difference it would make. I watched an intersting video where they were attempting to throw a guy out of a Mags Court, the Police turned up, he uttered the magic words and the police stood back and took no further part.


They probably stood back as they thought he was a nutter, and were cautious for their own safety before the mental health team turned up!
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (the_devil @ Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 09:07) *
QUOTE
I was wondering what difference it would make. I watched an intersting video where they were attempting to throw a guy out of a Mags Court, the Police turned up, he uttered the magic words and the police stood back and took no further part.


They probably stood back as they thought he was a nutter, and were cautious for their own safety before the mental health team turned up!



Well, seriously, it must have meant something to them, I doubt they would pass the chance of nicking someone for S.5 Public order if they could.
Jamez80
I remember seeing that video (is it the one where the judge bows to the defendant when he leaves?), I didn't understand it if I'm honest. However I know it shouldn't have been secretly recorded!
captain swoop
Freeman on the Land stuff is rubbish. It doesn't work don't put any trust or faith in any of their youtube videos showing how well it works. Not one of them has won anything in court apart from jail time for Contempt.

Several long running threads on this site debunking the whole nonsense

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91

southpaw82
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 00:46) *
I was wondering what difference it would make. I watched an intersting video where they were attempting to throw a guy out of a Mags Court, the Police turned up, he uttered the magic words and the police stood back and took no further part.


Ok... means nothing to me (ex-police). There are plenty of other serving or former police on here... does it mean anything to any of them?

Do we know if it was a real court, as recording is illegal in courts here.
baggins1234
No
the_devil
QUOTE (Jamez80 @ Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 13:27) *
I remember seeing that video (is it the one where the judge bows to the defendant when he leaves?), I didn't understand it if I'm honest. However I know it shouldn't have been secretly recorded!


That's probably the video where the defendant utters the magic words "I'm a mason" and the judge defers to him.
captain swoop
There are several 'feeman' videos that were secretly recorded in court. One of the recorders was sent down for contempt.
southpaw82
Presumably because they don't believe the law prohibiting it doesn't apply to them. Genius!
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 20:39) *
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Fri, 23 Sep 2011 - 00:46) *
I was wondering what difference it would make. I watched an intersting video where they were attempting to throw a guy out of a Mags Court, the Police turned up, he uttered the magic words and the police stood back and took no further part.


Ok... means nothing to me (ex-police). There are plenty of other serving or former police on here... does it mean anything to any of them?

Do we know if it was a real court, as recording is illegal in courts here.


Ill find it for you, id be intersted in your take on it.

*edit

here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVWKpNkav0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTPoTX8IAE...feature=related

theres two parts, the next part is top of the list.

You need to understand they make a distinction between the legal fiction of a person, represented by a Birth Certificate, and a human being. The police turn up at 7:12
southpaw82
It still means nothing to me. If someone had said those words to me they'd not have had any relevance to me and I'd have carried on as normal.
captain swoop
It's part of the Freeman BS. They think that coirts are commercial entities and if you refuse to Contract wit h them they have no jurisdiction. If you pull out this 'oath as peace oficers under common law' routine they can't arrest you for anything as if they admit they arenunder oath on the common law then they are just there to keep the peace and can't enforce the courts contract as you haven't contracted with the court.
Never tell the Judge you 'understand' anything it means you have agreeed to stand under his authority and you have contracted

Wait until you get into the whole Admiralty Court routine (why do you think you stand in the 'dock')

If you follow the freeman way you will end up in Jail.
southpaw82
Admiralty jurisdiction... whatever.

A bit like those whackos "Sovereign Citizens" in the US who hark on about the Sheriff being the only proper law enforcement officer and the Special Maritime Jurisdiction of the US?

Whack jobs.
captain swoop
it's a common theme to see theat the US Courts sometimes use a flag in the courtroom with a gold fringe around the edge. this makes it a Naval Ensign and prrof that the courts are 9by some complicated reasoning) under Admiralty law and controled by the British Crown which is in turn controlled by the vatican. They hold that th Magna Carta is the only real law even in the USA.

If you want to go deep into the rabbit hole look up the debunking threads on the JREF Forum I linked earlier, all you will find is failure and jail.
southpaw82
I just laugh and point.
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 25 Sep 2011 - 20:05) *
I just laugh and point.

But I was told is was as rude to point as it was to stare.
southpaw82
Point out that they're going to spend some time in a cell, of course wink.gif
sgtdixie


I have had quite a few drivers tell me they were masons and knew the cc. I still gave them tickets and told them to show it to the cc at the next lodge meeting. amazing how many friends the chief has!

As for freeman and all that rubbish about sworn constables, a traffic cop wouldn't believe the pope (please insert religious leader as appropriate) and let him off so that's not going to work either.
roadrunner 163
I just lost 20 minutes of my life watching that cr@p. The magistrates gained any authority of the court when anyone stood and acknowledged them so, or what ever drivell they were going on about. My point being 14 mooks may have a gripe but is one person stands that would surly give the authority to the magistrates under common law. Its not a bleeding majority vote issue.

BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (roadrunner 163 @ Tue, 27 Sep 2011 - 23:57) *
I just lost 20 minutes of my life watching that cr@p. The magistrates gained any authority of the court when anyone stood and acknowledged them so, or what ever drivell they were going on about. My point being 14 mooks may have a gripe but is one person stands that would surly give the authority to the magistrates under common law. Its not a bleeding majority vote issue.


Its an individual thing, not a group effort, they all have to stand. Authority is only given by you when you stand, and just because you stand and I dont, dosnt mean the court has authority over me as well..................allegedly

Must admit, its the first time ive seen the MAgs hiding.

And you also have to admit the fact the judgement was typed out 2 hours BEFORE the hearing smacks of abuse of process, or it does to me, how can you type the results of the trial before the trial has taken place?.
Fredd
What utter bullshit. Of course the mags left the court, there wasn't anyone who'd admit to being the defendant and there was a bunch of morons disrupting the court that the clerk was endeavouring to have removed. After all that he didn't get anywhere with this nonsense and the liability order was made anyway. And as for the time of the order - that would have been the start time of the session, not when it was signed.

There's a reason why we keep Freeman drivel away from any help or advice in this forum, and those videos illustrate why.
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 29 Sep 2011 - 13:25) *
What utter bullshit. Of course the mags left the court, there wasn't anyone who'd admit to being the defendant and there was a bunch of morons disrupting the court that the clerk was endeavouring to have removed. After all that he didn't get anywhere with this nonsense and the liability order was made anyway. And as for the time of the order - that would have been the start time of the session, not when it was signed.

There's a reason why we keep Freeman drivel away from any help or advice in this forum, and those videos illustrate why.



Right, but how can you fill in a liability order when liability hasnt been proven in court at that point. Surely the time on the order has to be the time the court case was closed? Why is it not abuse of process to prefill it in, surely that violates the the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept ?
southpaw82
Is it unreasonable to have a draft order before the court so that it can be executed if necessary? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way, as the answer is "no").
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 29 Sep 2011 - 18:58) *
Is it unreasonable to have a draft order before the court so that it can be executed if necessary? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way, as the answer is "no").


But on the other hand, it does on the face of it look like the decision has already been made before the trial, doesnt it ? Which rather makes a mockery of the whole thing, does it not? If they built a gallows to hang someone before the trial, there woudl be an outcry, yoiu can be sure, where is the principle different ?
southpaw82
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Thu, 29 Sep 2011 - 20:39) *
But on the other hand, it does on the face of it look like the decision has already been made before the trial, doesnt it ? Which rather makes a mockery of the whole thing, does it not? If they built a gallows to hang someone before the trial, there woudl be an outcry, yoiu can be sure, where is the principle different ?


If you think the two are the same then perhaps Freeman of the Land is for you.
captain swoop
Freemen On The Land, not 'of'

It may seem a minor difference but it is the whole lynchpin of their movement. By claiming you are 'On the Land' you are not in the jurisdiction of the supposedly Admiralty Courts and therefore not subject to any Statute law.
andy_foster
The law as sane people understand it, is basically a series of rules applied ultimately by the courts and backed up by the power of the state.

The courts consist of judges and lawyers who hold qualifying law degrees (or the equivalent). The judges determine what the law is.
Anyone with a qualifying law degree will have been taught that the basic constitutional principle of British law is the sovereignty of [the Queen in] Parliament. As long as there are no constitutional conflicts between the Queen and Parliament, all judges work on the principle that [the courts' interpretation of] Acts of Parliament are law. The state backs up the decisions of the courts. If the courts send you down, you get locked up - whether or not you recognise the authority of the courts, the laws of physics recognise the bars in your cell.

No court will recognise the Freeman on the land bollox. You might decide not to recognise what the courts call law as real law. You might decide to call it Gerald. That does not stop the courts applying it or the state enforcing the court's decision. You might decide that you are a sovereign state and that what sane people regard to be the state is an invading army. Unless you have the power to repel and overthrow what sane people consider to be the state, what you think is irrelevant unless you are entering a plea of insanity.
BicycleRepairMan
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 30 Sep 2011 - 19:41) *
QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Thu, 29 Sep 2011 - 20:39) *
But on the other hand, it does on the face of it look like the decision has already been made before the trial, doesnt it ? Which rather makes a mockery of the whole thing, does it not? If they built a gallows to hang someone before the trial, there woudl be an outcry, yoiu can be sure, where is the principle different ?


If you think the two are the same then perhaps Freeman of the Land is for you.


No, dont avoid the question, i want you to explain why you think its doesnt look dodgy. Writing out the order beforehand clearly indicates they think there going to need one, ergo they expect a guilty verdict even before the trial,. If people who administer the justice system act in this manner, then it doesnt give one much faith in the principles of 'fair trial' and 'innocent until proven guilty', does it - be honest here.
southpaw82
Fine - you're going to get the same treatment as everyone else who spouts Freeman bollocks on here.

The reason a draft order is written out before hand is for the purposes of efficiency and so the court knows what order the parties before it are seeking - what is said in court may not reflect what the draft order says. Draft orders are regularly submitted for those very reasons.

I'm not "avoiding the question" I am simply not going over old ground with this Freeman crap that I, Andy and others have demonstrated to be patent madness on numerous occasions. People who spout it on here and continue to do so get treated as they deserve.
captain swoop
I have been following the evolution of the 'Freeman' lunacy for a few years. It's amazing how fast it evolves. They seem to feed off each other. What they read on one website is repeated on another with misunderstandings, modifications and additions and is passed on. They use each other as references and sources so it is self perpetuationg.
andy_foster
I seem to recall that we used to have a simple method for stopping it perpetuating on here.
Aretnap
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Mon, 3 Oct 2011 - 08:55) *
I have been following the evolution of the 'Freeman' lunacy for a few years. It's amazing how fast it evolves. They seem to feed off each other. What they read on one website is repeated on another with misunderstandings, modifications and additions and is passed on. They use each other as references and sources so it is self perpetuating.

I used to spend quite a bit of time arguing with creationists, which was entertaining in a bang-your-head-against-a-wall sort of way, and noticed the same pattern. They stay within their walled garden of true believers, cite only each other as sources and generally act as a giant echo chamber where the same errors get repeated uncritically and magnified over and over again, no matter how many times sane people outside the walled garden debunk them. It's the same with the adherents of most pseudosciences and conspiracy theories. Trying to talk them out of it is a waste of time, as I eventually discovered, so laughing and pointing is the best option.
captain swoop
It's important to point out the lunacy, there are people who are drawn to it out of greed or desperation. Not much sympathy of the first type but we have examples of JREF of people who are persuaded by the smooth talking con men who sell the various packages and documents that promise to get rid of your debts, let you drive with no license or claim your 'Birth Bond' from the govt.

Some of the 'big names' in the movement are out and out scam artists.
southpaw82
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 3 Oct 2011 - 08:57) *
I seem to recall that we used to have a simple method for stopping it perpetuating on here.


Have you noticed how quiet it is in this thread now? wink.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.