Paul Randle-Jolliffe

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I fought the law
and the law won

Icon pseudolaw.svg
us crazy

Paul Randle-Jolliffe is a British pseudolaw practitioner who operates Patrocinium Interventus, a "Christian General Law Advocacy Service."[1] Randle-Jolliffe offers "an Alternative as well as a Complimentary[sic] service to Solicitors & Barristers." He has no legal qualifications.

According to Patrocinium Interventus: "Our approach to the law is underpinned with a high regard to the foundations of English Law and that of all Common Law Jurisdictions in the Magna Carta which is an expression of the Biblical foundations of our systems of law."

In point of fact very little of the Magna Carta remains legally operative and the Bible (fortunately) has no influence on current British law.

Nevertheless, this "complementary and alternative legal practice" indeed makes much of the Magna Carta[2] and explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other, as if that's some kind of legally valid argument.[3][4] In addition, Randle-Jolliffe has run for office in the Isle of Wight.[5]

Occupy movement[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Occupy Wall Street

Randle-Jolliffe made a submission as a participant in Occupy Wall Street, specifically as a participant in the so called "Occupy London Stock Exchange (OccupyLSX)" project. This baseless submission was rightfully thrown out by the court. Randle-Jolliffe, being confident that he could get what he wanted, decided to file an appeal, which did not succeed. From the judgment:[6]

It is convenient to deal first with one or two rather esoteric arguments raised by Mr Randle-Jolliffe.

First, he challenged the judgment on the ground that it did not apply to him, as a "Magna Carta heir". But that is a concept unknown to the law. He also says that his "Magna Carta rights" would be breached by execution of the orders. But only chapters 1, 9 and 29 of Magna Carta (1297 version) survive. Chapter 29, with its requirement that the state proceeds according to the law, and its prohibition on the selling or delaying of justice, is seen by many as the historical foundation for the rule of law in England, but it has no bearing on the arguments in this case. Somewhat ironically, the other two chapters concern the rights of the Church and the City of London, and cannot help the defendants. Mr Randle-Jolliffe also invokes ‘constitutional and superior law issues’ which, he alleges, prevail over statutory, common law, and human rights law. Again that is simply wrong – at least in a court of law.

Another ground he raised was the contention that the City had no locus standi to bring the proceedings ‘as the current Mayoral position has been previously usurped by the Guilds and Aldermen in Contravention of the City of London’s 1215 Royal Charter’. We do not understand that point, not least because both the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen and Guilds (through the Commonalty and Citizens) are included in the claimants.

His bizarre legal ideas led to 'Scrapper Duncan', one of OccupyLSX's legal team, writing a blog post describing him as a "woo merchant", and his claim that Occupy was not a protest "completely undermined the entire legal case which OccupyLSX rested its defence on".[7] When Mr Randle-Jolliffe complained about this to the Bar Standards Board his complaint was not upheld.[8]

Freeman on the land[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Freeman on the land

Randle-Jolliffe's preoccupation with the the Magna Carta and medieval law is very reminiscent of that shown by the Freeman on the land movement, and he was described by Scrapper Duncan as a "Freeman on the Land charlatan".[9] Randle-Jolliffe denies that he is part of the FoTL movement. Instead, he describes himself as a "hereditary freeman".[10] Nevertheless, his tactics are coincidentally very similar to the FOTL movement, and also don't work. This proves that semantics are obviously very important, at least to idiots dumb enough to believe in such systems.

External links[edit]