Talk:Paul Randle-Jolliffe

YOU MEAN HERE

There are many substantive errors of fact on this page.

I never submitted that the judgement did not apply to me or that statutes did not apply to me, the MASTER OF THE ROLLS invented that.

Judge invents evidence! That's a curious thing isn't it?

I sought to rely on 1, 9 and 29 of Magna Carta (1297 version) which is and the master of the rolls confirmed in court that they are still in statute but heir in the magna carta is unknown to law.

Even more curious its is in the legislation several times.

Four times here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/I

Confirmation of Liberties.

FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

The very judgement itself breaches

XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. 173.245.64.101 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

The person who wrote the blog this is based upon never represented occupy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 90.203.118.117 / talk / contribs}

The Senior Council for OccupyLSX was John Cooper QC. Source: http://www.occupylondonstockexchange.com/2012/02/16/occupy-lsx-judgement-day/ Template:Ihtoit

Respectfully, I think you can well understand that nobody here has the same experience of these matters as you do so we need some hand holding. What you've written is incoherent. If you believe there are factual errors in the article, please list them concisely and show us any sources you think support your position. Nobody wants this article to contain errors. 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so concerned about the factual errors as the character assassination. Maybe deal with that first and foremost? That said and out of the way, proper citations (as I have done above) would go a very, very long way to lend credibility to any claims that can be independently checked - and I do not mean to a blog belonging to someone who has a: never spoken to Randle-Jolliffe (I have), and b: hasn't practiced Law since 2010 (Occupy encampments established late 2011 [see http://www.occupylondonstockexchange.com/ and http://blog.scrapperduncan.com/about-scrapper-duncan/ ]). As at right now, this wiki in general reads more like one of those angry character-assassination blogs than a reliable information source, and some of the claims contained herein are one step short of libellous. Template:Ihtoit

No. That's not how this works. As an initial matter, I will take your statement that "some of the claims contained herein are one step short of libelous" to be an admission that nothing in the article actually is libelous. That's a fine starting point. Nobody here is going to touch the tone of this article unless and until you demonstrate that there are factual errors in this article. If you're claiming that this blogger is in error, show that to be so. Otherwise, you're going to get nowhere. Your complaints about "this wiki in general" do nothing to help your case. Get to making an actual argument. 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait just minute here. Are you or are you not Randle Jolliffe. If you're not, you've got no business claiming that anything in this article is "one step short of libel." These claims that the blogger has never spoken to the subject and hasn't practiced law in such and such a time are irrelevant. And frankly inane. Get busy making your case, counselor. 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not Randle-Jolliffe, think of me as a concerned bystander and a consumer of information which I must rely on to be factually correct due to the nature of why I seek that information. Nothing is irrelevant. Roy never saw the inside of the courtroom throughout the OLSX case. As I said, Cooper was the *only* silked QC representing OLSX (practically everybody except Tammy Samede, who Cooper was representing, represented themselves, and no solicitors were involved representing OLSX). That I have had some experience in not only OLSX but other areas of Law practice which I choose at this time not to divulge, more than qualifies me to comment. My comments not agreeing with your established sensibilities? Tough. I will cite my sources. My sources are reliable being first hand witness to events or seen through my very own eyes and heard by my own ears.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I am Paul however ( the above except that at the top is not me) and please take a look at http://www.occupylondonstockexchange.com/2012/02/16/magna-cart/

As you will see in the video all the appellants worked well together.

I never used any FOTL land approaches, I am not one, I do happen to be a hereditary freeman, this was stated and evidenced in court with my decent from the 1st Earl of Winchester, one of the Magna Carta Barons. I made a claim of right and the Master of the Rolls fudged it, he denied statute and INVENTED evidence. A false Instrument was issued, a false instruments from the court is a very serious matter. When I raise this with some of the commenting barristers they shut up very fast, it is a very serious matter.

Those few words, of the Master of the Rolls are very clever and misleading, I said far more, made 7 points of appeal not just the points raised including having input from a law academic, an ex city of London common council man etc.

Now to other non facts, Scrapper Duncan was not the actual legal representative of OLSX, he was part of the three man site legal team of which I was a member as well, I designed the site engagement process so everyone could submit statements and formed the legal task force of 15 people, I was the only member of the site legal team that lived on site 24/7, the site was represented in proceedings by Karen Todner of Kaim Todner as instructing solicitors and in Court by John Cooper QC and junior counsel.

Scrapper resigned before the appeal and he was never in court and he has a thing for Freeman on the Land, he decided to label me one as did Rational Wiki, fact is Im am not, I am many things including successful in court. 173.245.64.101 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

Lets also get something quite clear, I make use of common law (case law) and statutes, I cited evidence in the appeal, like the fact that the May 1215 city of london charter (not the the June 1215 Magna Carta as they are seperate legal documents) gives the right to the Barons of the City of London (Also known as the citizens and freeman) the right to choose their own Lord Mayor, NOT THE ALDERMAN, ipso facto there has been no legitimate mayor for a long time. I cited with copy CITY OF LONDONS own records on this. The city of london had previously taken its own legal advices on this but it is a matter that has never been properly decided in law.

http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/118/11708.htm

London Metropolitan Archives

CHARTERS IDENTITY STATEMENT Reference code(s): COL/CH Held at: London Metropolitan Archives Title: CHARTERS Date(s): 1067-1980 Name of creator(s): Corporation of London

I QUOTE

"The City of London has no charter of incorporation, and rights and privileges were granted by the Crown to the citizens under numerous titles - to the barons of London, to the mayor and citizens, or simply to the citizens"

"charter granting the citizens the right to choose their mayor, 1215" Original word is Barons AKA Citizens and/or Freeman

QED & Just because the MOR does not understand does not make it not fact.

This was a procedural issue of standing for the "Mayor, Commonality & Citizens of the City of London" there was no legitimate Mayor under the Royal Charter thefore no standing to bring the case, I won on this point alone except it was never properly dealt with, therefore the ruling in the lower court was void in law and should not apply to me as an appelant. Void orders due to lack of standing to bring an action are void.

Conversely I established my standing under Royal Charter (The June 1215 Magna Carta) with evidence, this was never questioned. Just like the current Monarch I and the Mayor (legitimate one) Commonality & Citizens of the City of London are all Heirs as specified under the same document.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents

"Section I

I Confirmation of Liberties.

FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever."

Is Heirs not mentioned four times??? It cannot be UNKNOWN TO LAW can it

This is current statute and includes

HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and other our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of (X1) the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of Holy Church and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.

From my GROUNDS OF APPEAL on procedural matters only, not the substance of the appeal itself

Grounds 2 & 3.

1) In 1215 the City of London became a party to the Magna Carta after a decision in 1213 at St Paul’s Cross that the financial and other excesses of King John needed to be dealt with. 2) Magna Carta is variously described as a covenant, contract or treaty. It is not an Act of Parliament. As we understand it, Magna Carta cannot be repealed by parliament. As a contract between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands. It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party rights of redress. 3) Although the 1215 Magna Carta pre-dates parliament by some 50 years it was subsequently enacted in 1297 with the passage of Edward 1’s Confirmation of the Great Charter Act, which included the words: "And we will that if any judgement be given henceforth contrary to the points aforesaid by the justices or by any other (of) our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters it shall be undone and holden for nought." 4) The text later includes words to the effect that the "charter of liberties shall be kept on every point." 5) All texts of the Magna Carta include that “We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever. “ 6) The Judge erred in that there are conflicts between the common law and the superiority of the Magna Carta and the authority of Parliament and in relation to the authority of EU Law regarding the Rights of the City of London which conflicts with the interests of the citizens of the UK, these are serious constitutional issues that can only be resolved by a court with authority in constitutional law. The court of appeal may decide that it is only the Supreme Court which has the Authority to deal with these issues.

173.245.64.101 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

This last bit about the alderman and mayor and Magna Carta and whatnot are irrelevant to this article, in addition to being 100% pure bullshit. Please keep your comments pertinent to helping us address your specific concerns about the article itself or I'm blocking you from posting. You've got a few more chances and then you're out of here. 23:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is highly relevant as it is the basis of the supposed substance of the profiling I have been given, I merely cite facts of history based upon evidence so its not bullshit.94.196.86.113 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

---

Yes, an IP behind "Hotspot Shield" is a Wikipedia-quality reliable source, and you completely aren't the 3 Mobile person elsewhere on the page despite the same writing style - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes I am, im free to use a shield if I choose on a wireless hotspot. 94.196.86.113 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

Hi Paul. I'm confused by your focus on freemanry (a) because you apparently did raise freemanry in the case you're referring to, (b) you identify as a FOTL despite denying it in the same sentence, and (c) the article's only reference to freemanry is a "See also," which is entirely appropriate, as you are apparently a FOTL. In any event, I believe both that your legal arguments are substantially similar to those advanced by FOTL and that identifying you as a FOTL is accurate and not defamatory. That part stays unless you got a more compelling argument.

Your account of the substance of some portion of the proceedings is fine, but I fail to see how it's relevant to the article. The article simply gives some background information about you and your "practice," with which you don't apparently take any issue," quotes whichever's court's characterization of some of your frivolous legal arguments in the case, and refers to Roy Duncan's description of some your legal arguments. I'm going to ask you a simple question that I expect you to answer. Are the words quoted in the box in this article from a legal opinion rendered by any court in the United Kingdom, or purported to have been rendered by such court? I'm not asking if you disagree with the opinion.

Does the article accurately describe in part the substance of Roy Duncan's blog post? Are you claiming that the synthesis of Duncan's post in the article is defamatory? If so why and how would you like us to address it?

I confess I have an extremely hard time following you. You've got some personal knowledge that nobody else has, yet you're not helping us understand what are your specific problems with the article. Can you please just make a list of what you think is wrong with the article? Put each thing you think is wrong on a single line along with what you propose we do about it. Thanks. 23:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have issue with the profiling of me and my practice.

Yes the words that appear in the box do appear appear in the judgement of the court of appeal. (No matter how outrageous and incorrect they are as to fact and the fact that the then MOR who is now the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE should know better than to invent facts and ignore the words and meaning of written statute.)

Well the label of freemanry is entirely eronious, I am not a FOTL, which is how rationalwiki apply it, I am a Hereditary Freeman, they are very different, FOTL land is a recent INVENTION, there are other "ancient" types of freeman in this country, I object to courts and others mixing the two, I am NOT A FREEMAN ON THE LAND, I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO ITS TENANTS, lots of which is nonsense, I can go into detail on the modern contexts of what a freeman is and I educate FOTL out of their nonsense where I can as it gets people into trouble. I dont deny my name, this is stupid, the name does not get arrested for a start the body does, hence habious corpus. I dont believe we are subject to admiralty law etc etc, I dont agree that statutes dont appply to me, if I dont contract.

So yes the combination is defaming, it presumes based on what is essentially Gossip, its also wrong because the Duncan post is wrong, it mis catagorised as a result, duncan projects his prejudice/bias on to me as did the MOR and court of appeal.

I will use any any all points of law in a legal argument and the City of London Claimed common law rights as well as statutory ones, so common law stuff is fair game.

But a little research will show you there are different types of freeman

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

If you live in the city of london for a year you can apply to be a citizen, AKA a freeman

http://www.guild-freemen-london.co.uk/

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-future/history-and-heritage/freedom-of-the-city/Pages/default.aspx

I am not a freeman of the city of london

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/about-leicester/lordmayorcivic/history-freemen-town-hall/freemen/

http://www.freemenofnewcastle.org/

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all have failed. As Clement Attlee PM lamented in “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.”

The members of the Common Council’s Committees are not elected on a local government franchise under the Representation of the People Acts, but by a franchise set down in a combination of private parliamentary acts and the City’s own legislative instruments, enacted by a procedure somewhat like Parliament’s. Most of the members of the Common Council are elected on a business franchise, which gives incorporated bodies an entitlement to appoint representatives as business voters based on the number of people employed. Such an arrangement does not, of course, exist at all in respect of statutory local authorities. In consequence the interests which most Committee members represent, and thus their accountability, is not (as in statutory local authorities) accountable to residents, but to business.

94.196.86.113 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

RationalWiki Errors

1 This complementary and alternative legal practice ""mostly consists of shouting about the Magna Carta""

2. and "explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other,"

3. "as if that's some kind of legally valid argument."

I use Statutes in legal argument, that does not ""mostly consists of shouting about the Magna Carta"" Magna Carta is a statute,I have never used it in practice only in seven years in two cases I was personally involved with, apart from that I have been involved in hundreds of cases mainly in family law.

Similarly I have used the fact that I am descended from from a magna carta baron an Earl in both those cases as it was relevent to who I am and my standing in a personal law basis as a fact.

So the 1st opening statement is presumptive and wrong

4. "His bizarre legal ideas"

There is no evidence of bizarre, the word "esoteric" was used, the implication was unusual, sure that was the point to deal with a highly unusual case by dealing with some foundational law matters

5. led to a lawyer who actually represents OccupyLSX

As stated above he was never the lawyer that represented OccupyLSX, he did not even like engaging with people on the site much, not many knew who he was. I was the public face of the site legal team. It is interesting that he became anti occupy later.

6. 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."

What was it the Bar regulator called him?? His own association! "RUDE"

He did say this but its just an opinion, he never saw my appeal, he was never in court and I only lost my appeal (fairly or not), the others lost their own they were separate appeals, but they liked mine as the video shows, MY APPEAL was that I WAS NOT A PROTESTER, not that OccupyLSX was not a protest. I did not speak for OccupyLSX in court John Cooper QC did, my appeal did not affect the other appeals in the same case. I was in fact thanked by the barristers as were the other appellants.

The only critic was Duncan but after he resigned from the site legal team, the fact is he has such a high opinion of himself and he hates FOTL arugments and presumed I made one and rationalwiki fell for it too.

94.196.86.113 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

By the way I won the other case I was personally involved with and cited magna carta statute, in fact the court was cleared and entirely replaced because they 1st denied its existence. I was asked later, in the second hearing after that, if I was a FOTL, I said no, they accepted that.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the legal profession and rationalwiki would object to a statute?????

94.196.86.113 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I'm in the States getting ready to go out for dinner and such. I won't be able to have a look at this until after work tomorrow. It's late where you are too. Why not take it easy and let's pick this up tomorrow. Alternatively, I'm not the only person here who can address this if someone else wants to respond. I was just asked because I'm a lawyer (not the wiki's or the RWF's lawyer mind you). 01:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, if you have an understanding of law that might be helpful92.41.11.148 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC) PRJ

Message to PRJ

Might I suggest signing up for an account? You have edited from multiple different IP addresses, and it makes it difficult for us to establish your identity and maintain talk-page contact with you. Signing up for an account would give you a static talk page as well as an identifiable name regardless of how you choose to protect yourself at public wifi locations. It's free, too. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already been asked and declined, ive only used two ip addresses, and as far as i can see there is only one other who is not a part of rationalwiki here92.41.11.148 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)PRJ

Thought you would like to see some of my actual work rather than the publication of what is essentially innuendo and gossip.

Since you came to my talk page to ask me to participate in this discussion, I should tell you that I will be out of town for the American holiday until Monday evening, so won't be able to do anything until then.

I'm not the only one who can have this discussion - nothing you raised last year requires a legal education to understand. ... Go ahead and make some specific suggestions for how you'd change the article so we can understand your position. 04:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a suggestion by addition quoting facts last night, it was removed.

For a start I am not a Freeman on the Land type. I am a Freeman of the historical sort

Freeman may refer to: a member of the Third Estate in medieval society (commoners), see estates of the realm Freeman, in Middle English synonymous with franklin (class), initially a person not tied to land as a villein or serf, later a land-owner Commoner Yeoman Freeman (Colonial), in U.S. colonial times, a person not under legal restraint Freeman, a person who has been awarded Freedom of the City or "Freedom of the Company" in a Livery Company

Here is a freeman Roll of 1835 long before FOTL was concieved of

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mrawson/free1835.html

Freemen on the land, a self-styled modern movement, or collection of organizations, asserting that law must be contracted with individuals to be valid

Freeman Status can be given, hereditary or honorary (ala freedom of the city etc) And guess what you have them in the USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_(Colonial)

Historically being a freeman carried with it the right to vote, and by 1632 only freemen could vote in Plymouth.

Only the FREE could vote, but you had a war due to "no taxation without representation" in the USA it was an assertion of Freeman rights.

Scrapper never represented Occupy. Paul Ridge of Bindmans did and then Karen Toder of Kaim Todner did.

One of the Occupy Slogans was "This is not a protest this is a Process." Scrapper is most disingenuous saying I undermined the appeal. But then he was not there much

The Master of the Rolls in the Appeal Invented that I said or submitted that laws did not apply to me, its a complete fiction, HE, SCRAPPER AND RW assumed I am a freeman on the land type, I am not and never have been, the judgement, scappers blog and RW post have bought into their own assumptive presumptive prejudices rather than facts.

When I have raised what the Master of the Rolls did with Lawyers here they are shocked and go very quiet.

I said a lot more in my appeal than about magna carta and i dont spend all my time ranting about it. ^{— Unsigned, by: PaulRJ / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Scream!! (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Checking in on my phone from the airport. If this is what you have to say about yourself, legal and historical gibberish that doesn't merit a substantive response. I'll read any concise and coherent statement of what specifically you would change about this article, but I'm not bothering with more of these rambling walls of text filled with horseshit some pseudo-lawyers made up. 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually Nutty I am mostly quoting public information.

My comments on the article are interspersed.

"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."

I have been involved in many cases and been successful using statutes, procedure and case law none of which are pseudolaw. Such a statement is not based on fact. It is assumptive and presumptive. FOTL dont do this do they?

People come to me after the legal profession have failed them, or they cannot afford a solicitor and I have been quite successful.

"This complementary and alternative legal practice mostly consists of shouting about the Magna Carta"

THIS IS UNTRUE, I have never used Magna Carta in anyone elses case, only two of my own, one I won one and lost the other, the occupy appeal.

"and explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other, as if that's some kind of legally valid argument."

I am a 24 times great grandson of Saer de Quincy who was 1st Earl of Winchester and one of the 25 Barons, this was as part of evidence of Freeman status, it was not questioned in the Occupy Appeal

"In addition, Randle-Jolliffe has run for office in the Isle of Wight."

And I shall be running again in 2015, the 1st time was toe in the water to get a feel for it, you wont find many FOTL people who stand in elections

"Randle-Jolliffe made a submission as a participant in Occupy London Stock Exchange (OccupyLSX), which was thrown out by the court and thrown out on appeal."

I did not make a submission I made an individual appeal like three others did. It was thrown out wrongly, the judge made things up and ignored evidence which I can prove!

But the judgement does not touch the other points of appeal including sumbission from a senior lecterer in land law and a university, a past council member of the city of london and other matters.

"His bizarre legal ideas led to a lawyer who actually represents OccupyLSX 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."

The Judge never said Bizaare and Scapper Duncan never represented OccuplyLXS, he was never in court and he has know knowledge of my other work to call me WOO on. Scapper failed as a barrister he went bankrupt and has a bee in his bonnet about FOTL people, which would be fine if I was one which I am not. The fact is the Master of the Rolls could not allow me to win, so he fudged his judgement, its a fix and I can prove it.

It did not affect the Occupy LSX appeal it was a separate appeal application from Occupy LSX PaulRJ (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"This last bit about the alderman and mayor and Magna Carta and whatnot are irrelevant to this article, in addition to being 100% pure bullshit. Please keep your comments pertinent to helping us address your specific concerns about the article itself or I'm blocking you from posting. You've got a few more chances and then you're out of here. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)"

Well nutty to revist this it is directly relevant and far from bullshit the City of London's Royal Charter of May 1215, not the Magana Carta of June 1215, gave the right of the "CITIZENS" (AKA Barrons & FREEMAN) of the city of london to elect their own Mayor, not just the alderman, its relevant as a point in law. This is not pseudo law its a fact of history, I had evidence from the City of Londons own records and a rather well known common council man. The appeal court said we don't understand this but it was clearly in evidence. It would be akin to the the US Senate choosing the President in the USA it would be a constitutional breach meaning no legitimacy of the office holder.

PaulRJ (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well also to revist this as you state Nutty

"Hi Paul. I'm confused by your focus on freemanry (a) because you apparently did raise freemanry in the case you're referring to, (b) you identify as a FOTL despite denying it in the same sentence, and (c) the article's only reference to freemanry is a "See also," which is entirely appropriate, as you are apparently a FOTL. In any event, I believe both that your legal arguments are substantially similar to those advanced by FOTL and that identifying you as a FOTL is accurate and not defamatory. That part stays unless you got a more compelling argument."

How does referring to a statute equate to freemanry???? Maybe you are confused. So let me ask you how many versions of the Magna Carta are there and which one do FOTL use in particular what sections and what did I cite and what Magna Carta did the master of the rolls accept in court as current law on his own before the case started including confirming with the city of london. Context and citation as you will know as a lawyer means a lot in law. PaulRJ (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"(c) the article's only reference to freemanry is a "See also," which is entirely appropriate, as you are apparently a FOTL. In any event, I believe both that your legal arguments are substantially similar to those advanced by FOTL"

The post has a large box on the right which links to mainly FOTL stuff, even if the rest is only by inference, that is the point of the article is it not, but I do not use FOTL arguments, I never have, they are mainly stupid and get people in trouble, I do not use "no contract" I say the opposite, I do not say "no jurisdiction" I accept juriductiona, I do not use "corporate person fiction" stuff, I do not deny my name, I do not use any of the freeman on the land stuff and never have.

I will use such unique things in law such as Locus etc (sic), I will use case law and statutes, in fact I had to get locus to appeal and even the judge accepted my basis and the funny side of that. I am only on this site because, the MOR assumed I was a FOTL and made a false statement or two that was not true about my submission and I have 50 witnesses and the case file to prove it, but the rest of you followed suit on the same erroneous assumption, Scrapper hates FOTL so is acing out his pet hate cos I got an appeal on the assumption also assumed by the MOR etc, you followed suit, you are throwing FOTL rocks at the wrong person, I argue against what they say with them and persuade them out of their self invented nonsense.

FREEMAN is not FOTL, why was Freeman relevant in this case, only because it was a case involving the city of london, which is governed by FREEMAN who hold their rights under the Manga Carta, fact confirmed in court by the MOR!

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/history-and-heritage/Pages/freedom-of-the-city.aspx

"provided one parent was a Freeman prior to the applicant’s birth"

Hello hereditary freeman.

"There are several ways to apply for the Freedom: by servitude (for apprentices who have served a full apprenticeship to a Freeman), by patrimony (for children of Freemen – provided one parent was a Freeman prior to the applicant’s birth), by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company. New members of the City Livery Companies are generally encouraged by the Company to apply for the Freedom. The process of becoming a Freeman through a Livery Company is explained in full by the Clerk of the Company.

Finally, persons who have been on the City of London Electoral Roll for a minimum of one year may obtain the Freedom without the need for an application visit or Common Council approval. There is no fee in such cases and applicants should advise that they are on the Ward List.

Freedom by Nomination – Persons of any nationality may apply for the Freedom by nomination. Forms are available from the Chamberlain’s Court and the applicant must be nominated by two sponsors who will be Common Councilmen of the City of London, Aldermen or Liverymen.

The applicant then makes an appointment to attend the Chamberlain’s Court for an ‘application visit’. He or she would bring a number of documents supporting the application - to include a full birth certificate, the completed nomination form and the Freedom Fee which is known as the ‘fine’. The current fine is £30. This no longer swells the coffers of the City of London but goes to the Freemen’s School in Ashtead for the Foundation Scholars.

The application is then presented to the Court of Common Council (the City of London’s governing body) for approval, after which the applicant is advised in writing to contact the Court to arrange a date for the Freedom Ceremony.

In addition, there is another specialised category open to those people who which to stand for election for the Court of Common Council and who do not have ready access to the Nominators outlined (ie the Lord Mayor, Sheriff, Aldermen, Common Councilmen of the City of London or Liverymen). In such a case, an applicant can be supported by any two electors registered in the City or by two persons eligible to sign an application for a passport.

For further information on the Freedom of the City email chamberlains.court@cityoflondon.gov.uk or call the Chamberlain’s Court on 020 7332 3055.

PaulRJ (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that a small group of FOTL tried to get the QC who is a FREEMAN OF THE CITY OF LONDON in the case removed from representing Occupy and I STOPPED THAT AS OCCUPY HAD KNOW THE FACTS WANTED HIM. PaulRJ (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it's in all-caps, I guess you've made your point. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is actually based on a straw man fallacy position that I am something I am not, when is someone from RW going to engage properly???

Straw men are notoriously easy to construct and one can simply attack the straw man position instead of the opponent's actual points, and claim any subsequent attempt to correct the situation as a conceding the argument. Sometimes it's so easy, you can do it without thinking.

Is any one capable of thinking here and dealing with the issues? PaulRJ (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"04:20, 30 November 2013‎ PowderSmokeAndLeather (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (-285)‎ . . (Undo revision 1263646 by PaulRJ (talk)Comments go on the talk page. Putting them in the article won't do you any good, dummy.) (undo)" PaulRJ (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"PaulRJ (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "We're a biased website, and the articles reflect our bias. PowderSmokeAndLeather:"

Glad that's sorted. So rational means well rationalised bias! PaulRJ (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

God, you really don't have anything better to do with your time, do you? --Revolverman (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I do lots of things with my time, I find it incredible that people can make snide comments but no one is really engaging. PaulRJ (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What you need to do, Paul, is take one single point and explain clearly where it is wrong. You need to do this concisely and clearly. If you create vast, rambling, largely irrelevant responses covering multiple points then nobody is going to engage with you. Stick to one point, make it clearly, and try to do so in one paragraph.--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK Weirdstuff but it would be helpful is there was a least some proper engagement that results.

Point 1. Article error of fact. Scrapper Duncan never represented OccupyLSX. 

That was 1st by Paul Ridge of Bindmans and then buy Karen Todner of Kaim Todner. Scrapper Duncan could never have represented Occupy as he was made Bankrupt and was not authorised to Practice by the Bar Association and therefore had Zero Rights of Audience. ^{— Unsigned, by: PaulRJ / talk / contribs} PaulRJ (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the stray capital letters make your argument More Important? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No I am dyslexic and a one handed typer so they slip in. How about a comment on the substance?? PaulRJ (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Because this, and you, are very, very boring. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments achieves what precisely? Frankly you are most of you behaving like trolls! PaulRJ (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

To deal with the next points of error on RW

Recently added to RW

1. " He has no legal qualifications."

The MoJ say I do not need any so the point is?

2. RW states "and explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other, as if that's some kind of legally valid argument"

I have never said that and that never appeared on patrocinium.eu so entirely false

3. His bizarre legal ideas

The Judge said esoteric not bizarre

esoteric ˌɛsəˈtɛrɪk,ˌiːsə-/Submit adjective 1. intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

4. SD "one of OccupyLSX's legal team "

I was one on the legal team as well!!!!!!!!!

5. his claim that Occupy was not a protest "completely undermined the entire legal case which OccupyLSX rested its defence on

OCCUPY SAID THIS "This is not a Protest this is a Process." How could scrapper have mised this

The lawyer states in http://www.thelawyer.com/court-unanimously-rejects-occupy-lsx-appeal/1011520.article

"Arguments were also made that the judge was wrong to contend that the camp was a “protest camp”, with the appellants claiming it was more of a movement."

The judgment said: “The aims of the movement, as implemented in the camp, include education, heightening awareness and fostering debate.

please notice the plural "appellants" below.

I did not represent the Movement only myself in court the QC did and he represented it as a movement!

So you are repeating a falsehood

This is a disingenuous misrepresentation by Scrapper, repeated by RW as a Occupy's across the world used "The is not a protest, this is a process!" or its a prototype some times (that was stated many times but by me only once), and "You can't evict a process" and "You can't evict an idea." as Slogans, I never invented this and my appeal was separate from the camps one, so how could it undermine the OLSX case which was based on the Human Rights Act.

This was at Finsbury Sq, an offshoot of OLSX

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6762625321_c4728d81f4_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7010/6762592369_62ca719b8e_b.jpg

FULL PUBLIC VIEW!!!!!

Just over half way down here

http://static.scripting.com/occupyWeb/photoRiver/2012/01/25.html

and more

http://occupynashville.org/frequently-asked-questions/

http://www.rushkoff.com/blog/2011/10/26/cnn-occupy-wall-street-is-not-a-protest-but-a-prototype.html

http://www.rightnow.io/breaking-news/bulgaria_bn_1361790715326.html

^{— Unsigned, by: PaulRJ / talk / contribs}

You don't get to decide what this article will say about you. The only point I can see in the above comments wherein the article is stating something factually incorrect about you (rather than merely repeating opinions that you don't like) is the comment that you claim to be "descended from some Duke or the other". I think this can be considered exaggeration for the purposes of satire, based on the fact that you did (as I understand it) make claims to hereditary rights & privileges based on distant ancestry. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It was never on the site so factually incorrect FALSE

Justify bizarre?

The RW site was based on that I was a FOTL, its mis categorised ^{— Unsigned, by: PaulRJ / talk / contribs}

I know the rules don't really apply to you because you're descended from the original lizard people or some such, but could you please have the courtesy of signing your post with a proper signature template and not your special snowflake way of doing it? Thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Where have I ever said the rules do not apply to me? You only say that because it advances your argument that I am something I actually and not. "Reminiscent" of FOTL type, I do not and have never subscribed to FOTL BS, it is UTTER NONSENSE.

I mention a constitutional statute and you label me an idiot

I think you might find that Lord Neuberger (by your reasoning) is a FOTL! The same judge in the Occupy case by the way.

He mentions the magna carta far to much does he not! (Please add him to your RW list)

Lord Neuberger: access to justice is “crucial” to uphold Magna Carta rule of law http://www.cvlaw.co.uk/lord-neuberger-access-to-justice-is-crucial-to-uphold-magna-carta-rule-of-law/

LOL my 24 Times GGrandfather found NOT GUILTY by Lord Neuberger https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/magna-carta-barons-found-not-guilty-of-treason-against-king-john.html

also

http://ukscblog.com/manga-carta-the-bible-of-the-english-constitution-or-a-disgrace-to-the-english-nation/

"32. One of the four provisions of Magna Carta which is still part of our law is clause 13, by which King John agreed to

respect and preserve the “ancient liberties and free customs” of the City of London. That strikes a real chord today, when the importance of the City as a financial centre for the prosperity of the United Kingdom is widely accepted"

Magna_Carta

Dicey’s views on the matter enjoyed ascendancy for more than a century, but a partial dissent was expressed by Lord Justice Laws in a well known case in 2002, Thoburn v Sunderland CC [2002] 4 All ER 156. There the Divisional Court rejected an argument that subordinate legislation implementing an EC Directive was unlawful. In obiter dicta, Laws LJ suggested that “we should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional statutes’” [para 62]. As examples of constitutional statutes, he listed “the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The 1972 [European Communities] Act clearly belongs to this family” [62]. Whereas ordinary statutes might be impliedly repealed, he suggested, constitutional statutes could only be repealed or crucially amended “by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute” [63].

In 2014 a decision of the Supreme Court has brought constitutional statutes to prominence again. Indeed, in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, the concept is not merely used approvingly, but is rebranded, as Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance prefer to talk of “constitutional instruments.” In obiter dicta, Lord Reed (with whom the other six judges agreed) confirmed that the impact of EU membership on sovereignty was a matter of UK constitutional law, to be resolved by the UK courts [79], as Laws LJ had observed in Thoburn. Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance (with whom the other five judges agreed) said that “constitutional instruments” included “Magna Carta, the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights…, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1707. The European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 may now be added to this list”

A few months after Thoburn, the House of Lords had to decided whether to invalidate or uphold the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister within the Assembly in Northern Ireland, that was procedurally out of time: Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 had not been mentioned by Laws LJ in his list. However, according to Lord Bingham in Robinson, the Act was “in effect a constitution” [11] and, influenced by the political and legal background, the majority upheld the election. In BH v Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 24, a case about extradition, Lord Hope said that “the fundamental constitutional nature of the settlement that was achieved by the Scotland Act [1998] … must be held to render it incapable of being altered otherwise than by an express enactment” [30]. The same judge, in a case later that year in a different context, was more ambivalent about the description of the Government of Wales Act 2006 as a “constitutional enactment,” noting that “I do not think that this description, in itself, can be taken to be a guide to its interpretation”: Re Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 [2012] UKSC 53 at [80].

PaulRJ 17:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Re "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".

Should include that "However one of the Occupy Slogans was "This is a process not a Process." which was quoted by those representing Occupy in court as well." PaulRJ 17:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The above 'lump of Wikipedia-type text' should either have the [references] added or [numbers] removed as the present format detracts from the argument (whatever it is) - as does not adding relevant capitalization.

Going by [1] all natives of the UK are probably freemen/freewomen - unless someone cares to research the inheritance of 'villeins, cottars and borders' and/or revive the obsolescent form of attainder. As with the 'trial by battle case' of the early 19th century some interesting results could arise. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally someone comments who gets it right PaulRJ 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia says 'Attainder by process' is obsolescent; and 'I read somewhere' that the last villein in England was someone called Pigg who was liberated in the time of Elizabeth I; and I would add '/free inclusive other' (to cover all possibilities).

The UK trial by battle case is referred to in the 'modern era' section of [2]. Trial by Battle may still, however, be valid in the domains of the Duke of Normandy and the King of Mann (unless said places were specifically included in the legislation) and may be so in the United States. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There are occasional examples of sometimes bizarre legal anomalies arising from the Isle of Man/the Channel Islands not being specifically mentioned in legislation - but that is a whole different kettle of fish. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

'Church of England'

Bear in mind that the usage in the Magna Carta (as quoted above) is a distinct 'thing' from the modern day Church of England (as started off by one Henry VIII Tudor), therefore the statements have even less connection with reality. Anna Livia (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)