"The truth is not a popularity contest." It creates trouble or are you suggesting i comply with anything less?
Well if there was the promised proper and "Rational" engagement I would not be so bloody minded, did you even read what I posted?????
The page happens to be about me so I have every right to be properly engaged or respond otherwise
Additional rights of hereditary freemen
I have no idea what a hereditary Freemason is, a Freemason is very different to a freeman, a Freemason is a member of a secret club and I doubt is in anyway hereditary, a hereditary freeman is someone descended from freeman as opposed to from serfs etc, Freeman refers to: A member of the Third Estate in medieval society (commoners), Freeman, in Middle English synonymous with franklin (class), initially a person not tied to land as a villein or serf, later a land-owner. in the USA Freeman (Colonial), in U.S. colonial times, a person not under legal restraint.
In modern times there are hereditary freeman, those entered into the roll of freeman of a livery company or Freedom of a City and honorary freeman
Here for instance is the Maidstone Kent freeman roll from 1835
So a hereditary FREEMAN is Nothing to do with the Freeman on the Land Stuff (Freemen on the land, a self-styled modern movement, or collection of organizations, asserting that law must be contracted with individuals to be valid) or Freemasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry in the USA the nearest thing you might be aware of is Shriners etc though they are not really Freemasons proper
THE ISSUE FOR ME IS BOTH THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS AND RATIONALWIKI have ASSUMED I AM A FREEMAN ON THE LAND, AND I AM MOST DEFINITELY NOT. THE MASTOR OF THE ROLLS MADE UP EVIDENCE THAT I SAID OR SUBMITTED THAT LAWS DID NOT APPLY TO ME, thats what FOTL say but not me. I know those guys and I disagree with much of what they say.
AS BACKGROUND FREEMASONS North America The earliest known American lodges were in Pennsylvania. The Collector for the port of Pennsylvania, John Moore, wrote of attending lodges there in 1715, two years before the formation of the first Grand Lodge in London. The Premier Grand Lodge of appointed a Provincial Grand Master for North America in 1731, based in Pennsylvania. Other lodges in the colony obtained authorisations from the later Ancient Grand Lodge of , the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and the Grand Lodge of Ireland, which was particularly well represented in the travelling lodges of the British Army. Many lodges came into existence with no warrant from any Grand Lodge, applying and paying for their authorisation only after they were confident of their own survival. After the American Revolution, independent U.S. Grand Lodges formed themselves within each state. Some thought was briefly given to organising an overarching "Grand Lodge of the United States," with George Washington (who was a member of a Virginian lodge) as the first Grand Master, but the idea was short-lived. The various state Grand Lodges did not wish to diminish their own authority by agreeing to such a body.¨PaulRJ (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The right to require that they are treated lawfully, that properly extends to all but is often abused, so I merely assert to require it as it plugs into all sorts of case law Lord Justice Coke , it establishes a foundation. One particular right is that my rights cannot be given away without my being consulted, this has the effect of all sorts of laws being affected.
Its no particular special rights just particular legal arguments i can use and have used before successfully. Certainly the right to be a hereditary freeman and not to be abused for such a fact. PaulRJ (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. What I'm trying to understand is what additional rights would you have in the UK that somebody who was not an hereditary freeman wouldn't have. Thanks.--Coffee (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The right to the legal argument I made in court, that was the point, legal arguments which have been made time and time again over 1,500 years here. Essentially these are Claims of right rather than grant, not that others do not have them just that I can prove mine are ancient rather than modern. More properly & Scotland rather than whole UK though. I have the same rights in law that my ancestors had as an heir to them. The reason I framed it such was that they have been breached on a 100% basis. But it gives me the right to argue them not only for myself but others.
Its no different rights to anyone else, as all now are free, except the basis on which I could make that argument was different as I can prove my ancestry, its in the public record, thats what the MOR meant by , it is unfortunate that the FOTL jigery pokery has caused so much damage to my rights and the assertion of them.
An accident of birth makes me a direct descendent of one of the 25 magna carta barons and I proved that in two courts by the family tree but only in cases I have been involved with personally, I felt that was needed because I was not being properly treated, but its disingenuous to say because of that I am a FOTL.
It also gives me the right to drive livestock down the street of my home town, that was not relevant to the case and my family have not done that for several hundred years. PaulRJ (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- So - if I understand you correctly - you have no more rights then anyone else. Is that the case?--Coffee (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That's right in under English law, (I have fewer rights in other counties, except I am the only one with rights to be me anywhere), and that was the point, MY appeal re Occupy was my appeal not anyone else's and not the camps, it had its own. I had helped put together the initial defence facilitating a site legal team for the defendant who I chose from the volunteers and 100+ personal witness statements, I also put in a witness statement, all statement were done under confidence and Scrapper had on that basis no right to quote from it. But my appeal was brought on a personal basis, not for the camp which was a separate appeal, it was my right to do so. In doing so I stated who I am and why I was there, pulled one one extra right which all others have but not for the same legal reason which included being recognised as Freeman.
I said hereditary as that's a fact and as part of the establishing that the Current Statute applies to me by specific reference by descent and not some later grant in law. Universal suferage did not happen until 1918-1928. The only way the MOR could deny this was to say that there are no hiers in law under the Magna Carta, curiously this also denies the current monarchs rights under it as well as the city of londons, hier is clearly there in s1 of the CURRENT STATE 4 times and it says forever.
- But if every British citizen is an "hereditary freeman" why bother mentioning it? It's the same as saying you are a "human being". If it gives you no additional rights why go on about it? The FOTL folks think that it's some sort of magical phrase that gives you some sort of legal advantage, but if you don't agree with their nonsense why even mention it? It just makes you look like them. --Coffee (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not every British citizen is a hereditary freeman, they have the rights of them by grant and frankly the FOTL brigade have no real idea what a freeman really is or what the common law really is, my status was a part of my appeal and its my right to assert who and what I am, its others harking on about that as being a FOTL argument that is the issue it has damaged me based upon completely false assumtions, this part of RationalWiki focuses on FOTL because i mention magna carta and i am not one, which i am not, I merely asserted my rights in regard to this and other laws, which I am entitled to do. So I am taking the time to address the errors of assertion and implication because they are false as are other supposed facts which are also false. This post is in the public domain and it claims some degree of iconoclast authority and it fails abysmally at facts regarding me and I wish that to be corrected as it also damages what I do for others.
I do not think that is unreasonable.
So let me ask you is the master of the rolls now he is president of the supreme court now a FOTL as he mentions the same three parts of the law as me that RW objects too. I really did laugh my head off.
- "The Government is in danger of destroying a 700-year-old right of access to fair and open justice to all, the most senior judge in the land has said.
- "Challenging plans to cut back dramatically on legal aid for hundreds of thousands of people from April, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said: "As one of the three remaining articles of the Magna Carta (1297) says "to no man shall we deny justice", nowadays "to no man and no woman shall we deny justice", and we are at risk of going back on that."
heir ɛː/Submit noun 1. a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person's death. "his eldest son and heir" synonyms: successor, next in line, inheritor, heir apparent, heir presumptive, heir-at-law, descendant, beneficiary, legatee, scion; devisee, grantee, parcener, coparcener; heritor
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. I have had it in the Neck from FOTL for this ever since cos I would not let them play their game. PaulRJ (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- So why are some British citizens hereditary freeman and not others? And I ask again - what additional benefits do these "hereditary freeman" have?--Coffee (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Because not all had a franchise, therefore some are hereditary and some by grant. Also until the law was changed women could not be freeman, now they can.
Put simply its a part of my legal personality and gives me the benefit of particular legal argument in defending my rights, which I have used twice, as well as herding livestock down the main street of my town. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I still find your position baffling. Apart from (alleged) right to run a herd of cows through your home town, explicitly what additional legal rights do you maintain you have in a court of law? --Coffee (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
My family used to ship livestock to the Royal Navy, but to get to the point, I could argue that I had direct rights by descent (ancient rights not later grant) which I could and did prove, that these were current rights under the 1215 magna carta and 1297 statute, my focus was the 1297 but the parts directly correlate, and that the city of also had rights under it, it is populated by lots of freeman, the mayor is a freeman, if he was indeed mayor, but whilst the city of london had all its rights protected all mine had been broken and yet I could prove my rights as a direct heir of one of the 1215 barons that helped to secure the cities rights.
The reason for doing this re ancient rights was to emphasis those rights as immovable, fixed as they were clearly in statute and I could prove a direct linkage to their origins and therefore s1 (the last part) "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."
It was an equal treatment under the law thing directly relevant to the city and I in the same statute. (FOTL land use s61 of the 1215 version not s1 of the 1297 version which is a statute, FOTL dont like statutes.) The point is all the underwritten liberties had in my life been broken, each one of them, and many others at occupy with or without hereditary franchise had had theirs broken too.
The point is I could use s1 and the other two sections I was asked which sections I wished to rely on by the MOR, I said all three, now only I and the court and my friends have seen what I submitted, its a full A4 bundle. Multiple Crimes had been committed against me by state officials, as well as on others at occupy thats why most were there and I attempted to speak for them as well. I was saying the opposite to the FOTL crew, that there was a contract and I consented to be governed by the law which entitles me also to remedy under it.
As the MOR said , : Noun "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest."
Yes intended for the Master of the Rolls, the historic keeper constitutional documents like of all things "the Magna Carta", though lately kept in the New British Library.
But apparently he could not or did not read the Statute! Very odd.
There were many other points that was just a preamble.
But to quote Churchill hardly bizzare.
"But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence."
"Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no force nor effect... Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threaten the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people--namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time, when difficulties are so numerous, to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence." - from volume I, chapter 8 of Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" published 1956. @p. 218 of The Folio Society's 2003 edition,published in London.
- It seems I may not have expressed my question clearly - perhaps it was too long - so I will try again. Apart from your (alleged) right to run a herd of cows through your home town, explicitly what additional legal rights do you maintain you have in a court of law that other people don't have? Thanks.--Coffee (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
OK maybe I can explain it this way, I have a legal status as a male but not as a female, so in regard to a being a parent of a child I would have the right to argue as a father, assuming that all parents were equal in all law, which is not true, then I would have the right to argue and would need to argue my position as a father and not as a mother, but that does not me my rights are any different just the legal position I argue from is. I am a hereditary freeman so I could argue from that position and it gave me one advantage in the argument only, but not rights, in that I could use an additional section of a statute that refers not only there heritability for freeman but is confirmatory of the other section that lists the rights that all now have was also brought about by my 24times Great Grandfather in the settlement of a rather important case in law that is still in force. Look at it as a right to use an extra nail.
- Your argument remains hard to follow. You state: - "I am a hereditary freeman so I could argue from that position and it gave me one advantage in the argument only"; but then you state: "but not rights".
- So what exactly is this "advantage" which is not a "right"?--Coffee (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not any other rights I should have said, the right to some additional legal argument/authority in law with the important word forever at the end, it's confirmatory of the law and the right to rely on it.
I have the rights because I am a Hereditary Freeman others have the same rights because of changes in the law since 1918, the same rights because all are now free because they can vote. I did not cite statutes since 1918 the Occupy Appeal did that, I added weight to those rights in s29 of the Magna Carta that all have but by citing mine and asserting mine under s1. Its just a different position in law. The effect of the MOR's judgement was also to deny the queens and her children's rights under s1. He said that being and heir under the magna carta is concept unknown to law at least in a court of law! Its nonsense!
Here is that part of the judgement.
- 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.
Here is chapter 1
- 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 1st part of chap 1 says church yes. But the second part relates to (hello) Freemen of the Realm, IT IS NOT JUST CHURCH AS HE SAYS is it? Who is playing woo here or as I call it Judicial Fudge. Also how many times does it mention "Heirs"? I count four times so it is hardly unknown to law in the Magna Carta is it? its there in black and white. More Judicial Fudge.
Who were the other party in the case??? City of London? So Chapter 9 not relevant? And the other interested psrty who gave evidence was yes a church of England Cathedral.
He has already dismissed the law so does not need to go into the rest of the 1st basis of claim for appeal. But he also the ignores entirely the other 6 basis of claim. Which is then a breach of due process and also a denial of my rights under the CPR and s1 & s29 of the Magna Carta. He did not dismiss the claims, he did not deal with them at all. So you have a judge who sits under the Queens authority to uphold the law, the city of London, the church (but no barons)and again my rights were breached only this time by the second most senior judge in the county. I used my legal position to test the court. PaulRJ (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Posting that silly disclaimer on random pages has earned you a spell in the vandal bin. You may now only edit once every 30 minutes. I hope this doesn't violate whatever very serious rights you have inherited because your grandfather was blessed by the Lizard People, or whatever it was you've been nattering about these past few days. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Then please arrange for the matters to be dealt with responsibly and fairly then that's all I want or I have only just started. I realise you are protected by amendments to the US Constitution but I am protected by the Malicious Communications Act in the UK. So I have just initiated requests to have your site blocked in the UK.— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
Malicious Communications Act 1988
You're certainly welcome to file a complaint under the Act, but looking through the law, it is likely going to be a steep uphill climb for you. Good luck. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
S1 (1) (a) (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender
I have informed you what is false and you have not done anything about it.
And you see I don't have to prosecute RW, I only have to seek an injunction on the transport of your site in the UK
Frankly a civil injunction based upon a criminal is quite easy and it wont even cost me a penny. But I have started by requesting a block at one of the main pipes.
I think it's funny how PowderSmokeAndLeather keeps removing my edits on his talk. Especially as he/she is a site admin and very useful that RW has a fossil record to evidence this! I can prove I tried, things were seen and there was a concerted effort to not do anything by anyone in RW inc an admin. You had three choices on how to respond. 1 Address issues raised. 2. Ignore. 3. Respond negatively. You chose a combination of 2. & 3. I have got all I need thanks for your assistance.
- You have no chance mate, none at all. Good luck on trying to get legal aid on this matter. So you want to waste the time(and mine and yours tax pounds) of an organisation that has it's hands full with real malicious threats because someone on RW hurt your feelings? For gods sake grow up--Mercian (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL I don't need legal aid, don't need a solicitor, I know how to fill in application forms and state a case etc, curiously that's not something FOTL do is it, I do it often for people and sure I'll waste the time and resources of an organisation that is responsible for affecting my life due false facts that I don't get engagement on addressing reasonably and rationally. And also when publicly posted untruths affect people I help and by association due to such posts put their families at risk, people who have kids kidnapped for instance. Weighing the relative value of children's welfare and RW I think the choice is easy and nothing to do with hurt feelings.
Take a look at some of my work, https://www.academia.edu/5242647/PRESS_RELEASE_and_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_THEY_TAKE_YOUR_KIDS_TOO_#1
also it is my right to bring a claim on something that affects me, however some one sensible has started to enable engagement so we will try that 1st and hopefully it wont be needed and in regard to the RW references I have been pointed to there are clear points of defamation in breach of RW policy so it should now at some point get sorted out no thanks to the rest of you numpties. Grateful thanks goes to RNS PaulRJ (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Esquire eh. So that would make you a younger son of a baron, or a member of the landed gentry? Perhaps a retired officer in The Blues and Royals?. Seriously though, nobody wants to put you or your family at risk. Simple solution would be to point out which parts of your entry are incorrect, back it up with with documentation and it will be removed--Mercian (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
One of those yes on my fathers side, no land anymore though, and my mother was from essex and her mother scrubbed floors for a living. Thanks for the concern, the consequential mistreatment and losses of trust and effects on my life and my sons have been quite dramatic, not "hurt feelings", and for others not in my family.
I stuck my head above the parapet to deal with serious institutional abuses and I actual won, the only way that could be stopped was by judicial corruption and by judgement giving the codes to lead you and others to label me as I am not.
I did actually try pointing out what parts and to start with evidence but that did not work all i got was silly responses, but its now been reffered by one of the sysops to management so I expect it will be dealt with off the RWtalks. PaulRJ (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As evidence this was posted on the post talk page
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?.Moderator 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?.Moderator 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)
- You may also want to take a look at RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover to see how you can better handle the situation from your end. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- And since we're on this topic, I feel I should inform you that it is generally against policy to blank articles outright. Also, and unlike Wikipedia (for example), we consider talkpages community property and generally don't agree with blanking talkpage content that isn't malicious (unless it is dumped into an archive after an appropriate length of time). Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Paul. I've been looking at your webiste. But I'm a bit confused about something. Do you actually have any legal qualifications? I can't see anything. I see that you put "mFLS" after your name but I've not been able to discover what that means. Thanks. --Coffee (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Member of the F____ L____ Society" at a guess, but I'm not sure what the F and L stand for. SophieWilder 12:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont really use that site anymore. (mFLS is member of the Family Law Society. http://familylawsociety.org/ I should change that as Im not currently a member.) I moved from Private Family Law to Public Family Law.
No I have no qualifications, I work when in a civil court as a McKenzie Friend, Ive been invited to get some quals but quite frankly that's not what I want, I have more freedom with out being a member of the legal club, I have friends who are qualified QC's and Advocates, one is a former London HQ CPS senior prosecutor my views are respected and I show them to be wrong about the law on occasions. I even have lawyers refering matters to me sometimes. I have been invited by a police force to speak at a conferance they organised and I have been involved in cases that have been in the press, though as Im not qualified I dont usually get mentioned.
A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a common law court. This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants in person are entitled to have assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case McKenzie v. McKenzie. Although this role applies in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, it is regarded[by whom?] as having its origins in common law and hence has been adopted in practice in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States. PaulRJ (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Its funny I often run rings round judges and Lawyers. I have had 100s approach me for help over the last 9 years since I have been involved mainly in law matters. It started with me having a big problem and then people asking me for help. Recently my focus has been family law and researching evidence of what quite frankly is endemic corruption in some quarters of our legal system. I was brought up on the law, I worked in the city in international finance, which involved forensics and law in the commercial environment, I have drafted legal documents since I was 25, 1st ones were not that good, lately I have been in all levels of court in England. I have also changed the course of cases without anyone knowing I'm involved by giving key advice. Most of what I have done has been without charge for people who cannot afford lawyers in situations where there are abuses by authorities.
Our legal system is in a very poor state, lawyers are failing the most vulnerable here if it was ok I would not be needed, and I have a reputation for standing up for people and going the extra mile as well as teaching them. More recently I have started the 1st formal Private Criminal Prosecution Service in the UK working with retired police officers as a mirror to the CPS and Police Systems. The 1st case I put together a ret Det Police officer of 30 years said it was one of the best constructed criminal cases he has ever seen. I have changed the way one police force and local authority works in domestic abuse areas, by arguing that current practices were unlawful.
I do have rights of audience in a criminal court.
No problem Coffee, one interesting little known thing in law, is that when you engage a legal professional, you are putting your self in care, you basically accepting that you are not competent to handle your own legal affairs and represent yourself. I have seen case law on this. I suppose the reason people come to me is I handle my own affairs and win. For instance without going to court. Police paid me £2,500 for unlawful entry to my home, unlawful arrest and imprisonment. The apologised in writing and paid over the scale for holding me @ £5 per minute. Two letters and one telephone call and I had sorted it. They offered me £2,300 I said I will accept £2,500. Frankly I wish they would make the same mistake each month.
Bible in English law
I notice the edits to the page, however there are still lots of issues (talk)
"and the Bible ( fortunately) has no influence on current British law." You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Whilst the country might be a post Christian country its law foundations are Old & New Testament based right from the time of Alfred.
The Queen is still the Queen her guys and her oath is still operative here this is not the USA where church and state are sepearte
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
- this is based on Micah 6:8 do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do. Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath
And whilst you might object to the Magna Carta it is Statute that I quote there, do you object to statutes as current law?
Why label me for legal facts?
Interesting that the UK's top judge confirms what I say in the video only he limits it to legal aid there is lots more
- Are courts really courts of justice or are y something else? PaulRJ (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- What is origin or meaning of word "Dock" in a court of Law? PaulRJ (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- What is basis of sole rights of Solicitors and Barristers to conduct cases in court? PaulRJ (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Its a Monopoly under Royal Charter, at least in common law countries.
- Dock is from 16th century Flemish dok, a pigsty. Nothing to do with ships, as is sometimes claimed. SophieWilder 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes 100% Sophie, not this rubbish to do with admiralty law and ships in dry dock which FOTL quote.
- Don't know, but you're just dying to tell us, aren't you? SophieWilder 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sophie has now taken care of it but PRJ please do not start lines with a space as MediaWiki software interprets that as a fixed formatting with no line breaks, which is very annoying for users on some platforms. Use an asterisk (*) or hash (#) at start of a line to make a bulleted or numbered list. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are doing but you keep removing the word "the" from previous posts. Please stop it. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't split other people's comments either. It's important to be able to see who said what when reading a talk page discussion. That's why we sign our posts. If you insert your responses right in the middle of somebody's comments, separating them from the user's signature, it makes a jumble of the whole thing. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to User:Psygremlin for the removal of the "THE"s it would seem a google search I still had active was higlighting and removing them when I posted, not I idea how that works but will watch it future. there was no intention to remove on my part PaulRJ (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- You just did it again :s SophieWilder 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You did it again with the edit posting the above. You've also removed other words, such as "hominem", "server", "esoteric", etc. Not to mention plagiarizing Wikipedia.
- The next removal will be summarily reverted, together with whatever content you add. If you are unable to use your computer properly, give it to someone who can.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
http://jolliffe.wordpress.com/ PaulRJ (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
http://jolliffe.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/child-taken-from--by-social-services-is-tip-of-massive-iceberg/ PaulRJ (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
http://jolliffe.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/child-taken-from--by-social-services-is-tip-of-massive-iceberg/ PaulRJ 07:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Pissed at you
RationalWiki:Pissed at us
Actually I have found some of you pleasant and some of you like annoying children. (Much as I like children)
I'm actually more concerned with fairness and accuracy but you seem more interested in you own prejudices and trying to project them.
I dont fit any of you Signs of pseudolaw http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw
I don't do debt elimination or any of that other stuff.
There is no malware on the site it was moved servers six months ago to deal with that chrome is not being truthfull just historical' http://prosecutionservice.org/ PaulRJ (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not thrilled at the idea of you using our article to promote your website, so please don't include it in the article. And try not to have another temper tantrum in which you vandalize my talk page. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 05:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well PowderSmokeAndLeather: you were being silly weren't you. Maybe you are over that now
Is this not a page about me? Why so concerned about having the whole and real picture then?
And what about the current news?? The very area I stated researching three years ago and actually stop the PI site stuff
You have prompted me to do the prior planned changes to the PI site for stuff I am actually now doing.
Why shouldn't it tell the whole picture my concerns for the last few years has been Family Law and its corruption in secret.
I am grateful for some of the error changes though, very.
I am making a challenge to RW given that the original pages irrational assumptions are falling to bits and will further over time, you really only have a very dodgy judgegment and a bankrupt barrister to rely on.
1. Should I be in the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw section & 2. Should I be in RW at all
You might like to see http://jolliffe.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/italian-case-amicus-curiae-submission/
See any Pseudolaw in there???? or will it help develop the law, I hope it will as do 1,000s of others here in the UK.
Make this a RW test case and see if any of the points I raise are in the judgement?
Judge me on my actuall work not what others with bias say, i.e. LJ Hamburger and Fire Breathing Bankrupt Barristers PaulRJ 07:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't edit an article about yourself
If anything is factually inaccurate (rather than merely opinions which you disagree with), bring it up on the talk page. If you want some vacuous "endorsements" listed, tough shit, put them on your blog instead. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 08:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
We tried that, you afraid of balance?
Here is a false fact PI site explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other.
It never said that and I am not, change it! Or I go to the operations manager as I did before!
I will address the rest after this is corrected. Opportunity for you to be a decent chap.
They are not vacuous they are by highly prominent people in a couple of the areas I work in, which you don't reference at all. Check them out! Check with them directly or shall I ask them to contact RW.
I am being straight with you RW got it wrong this time with this post. PaulRJ 08:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, do not edit the article.
- As for "Check with them directly or shall I ask them to contact RW.": Do it. *opens popcorn* --ZooGuard (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I shall ask them
Here is a false fact PI site "explaining that Randle-Jolliffe was descended from some Duke or the other."
I notice that my page edits can be undone, fast, but there is Zero response to addressing false made up statements of facts, which is why I cause problems, its the only way I get any responses ZooGuard
PaulRJ 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is some of my KungWoo, this will help thousands of families (And I do not use the magna carta once, though I could have, habus corpus is more applicavble
The evidence I gave to John Hemming MP in the Case is being used in parliament same as to Munby
That's this case which has been reported globally
QUOTE FROM JH MP's Blog
Parliamentary proceedings "Now that we know that the case is still live and to be heard by Munby P it is clear that the case is sub judice. That limits the range of parliamentary proceedings that can be used. I have, therefore, tabled a Motion in parliament relating to the failures of Essex County Council in terms of Communication with Foreign Institutions. This should appear tomorrow.
- My evidence
Essex County Council's failure to follow international law Under the Vienna convention article 36 and also under Brussels II Bis revised (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) articles 15, 55 and 56 the Italian authorities should have been contacted about both the mother’s imprisonment and the care of the baby. However, they were not.
In 2011 Essex (in response to an FOI request) said they had no contact with High Commissions and Embassies. In 2010-11 they had 21 children who were foreign nationals who had become "looked after". This was as part of 138 who had become "looked after" in the previous 5 years. It is clear, therefore, that they were not following international law then and have not followed international law in this case."
* Then his stuff
The government are also at fault because they have refused to even try to keep track of which children in the care system are foreign nationals. This could be done easily in the SSDA903 return.
(see what the judge does now)
Fer Christ's sake
its not that hard to deal with the issues of fact either, this has been going on for over a year!!!!
I will sign this one and see what happens and if nothing I will continue to be anoying PaulRJ 04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
24 hours to deal with the last point below !!! Medieval PaulRJ 04:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise I will go for blocking RW in the UK and get some others involved in vandal work on RA, that will keep you busy PaulRJ 04:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
And the point about being able to edit the article???
And what about the curtousy of responding to issuesPaulRJ 04:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's try to keep your whining confined to one spot. There's no need to start the same conversation in two different places, your Worship. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not a "your worship" snide remarks are uncalled for. PaulRJ 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Current Law not medieval
- "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,"*
It clearly states in the judgement that the case involved current statute http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents
It was clearly confirmed even by the quote from the judgement above this is current, so the article is misleading and comes to a false conclusion as a result.
FOTL use 1215 Magna Carta entirely, they dont like statutes so this is hardly "very reminiscent" of the "freeman on the land" movement. PaulRJ 02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You going to have to come to the conclusion at some point that the Master of the Rolls, Scapper Duncan and the rest and you have got it wrong due to you own prejudices PaulRJ 02:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
FAMILY LAW CHANGED
I submitted this to the President of the UK Family Division before Christmas 2013
This ways published yesterday
The Judge says "For a family judge to act, foreign authorities must be permitted in court and kept fully informed, he added."
Which is exactly what I said in the report
This work affects thousands of children! Likely some from YOUR COUNTRY. And re establishes the proper operation of law in the UK.
This RW damaged getting this done sooner and has therefore harmed children because of what you posted was listened to 1st.
There is still more work to do!
I demand you remove it please! RW 100% wrong about me. PaulRJ 07:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)