Legal Fictions

[jimrob]

Originally Posted by arayder

. . . and you are a natural person. A natural person who, it seems, believes he has been denied due process and access to the law of his choice.

Why not simply claim to have been denied access to Hammurabi's Code which provided for appeal to the King?

Where do you get that from?

It falls within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court (which is the highest jurisdiction of all I believe) to decide how best any proceedings should occur and to challenge the inherent jurisdiction is to show contempt for the court. You would have to be foolhardy to do that, or enjoy imprisonment I guess.

If you are a defendant or respondent you answer within the jurisdiction that the plaintiff or prosecution bring the case under. Why would the person answering a charge or pleading not respond within the law that the case was bought? That makes no sense to me and would seem to guarantee losing.

It is the instigator of proceedings who chooses jurisdiction.

I just point out that there is a a difference between statute and common law.

[jimrob]

Originally Posted by arayder

Documentation, please.

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/Un...m&JudgementNo=[2012]JRC052

[arayder]

Originally Posted by jimrob

It is the instigator of proceedings who chooses jurisdiction.

So why not simply claim to have been denied access to Hammurabi's Code which provided for appeal to the King?

Originally Posted by jimrob

I just point out that there is a a difference between statute and common law.

And you think common law says you are not a natural person?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by jimrob

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/Un...m&JudgementNo=[2012]JRC052

How about a link that works?

[jimrob]

This is the big win that we had here... they literally had to re-write the wording on parking tickets because of our efforts.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2...ay-be-illegal/

[jimrob]

Originally Posted by arayder

How about a link that works?

Sorry that is the case and surprise surprise they have restricted it what can I do?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by jimrob

This is the big win that we had here... they literally had to re-write the wording on parking tickets because of our efforts.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2...ay-be-illegal/

Wow, you "maybe" made some bureaucrats change the wording on tickets.

Of course this only affirms that, as a natural person, you are subject to statue law regarding parking tickets.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by jimrob

Sorry that is the case and surprise surprise they have restricted it what can I do?

And you think the log in requirement is all about you?

[jimrob]

Originally Posted by arayder

Wow, you "maybe" made some bureaucrats change the wording on tickets.

Of course this only affirms that, as a natural person, you are subject to statue law regarding parking tickets.

You counter arguments bare no relation to the comments made, you are clearly an automated bot and therefore I am beginning to doubt whether you are a natural person.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by jimrob

You counter arguments bare no relation to the comments made, you are clearly an automated bot and therefore I am beginning to doubt whether you are a natural person.

Oh, I doubt an automated bot would have caught that you didn’t really set the Jersey traffic ticket system on it’s ear and that your plans to cherry pick the law you want applied in court is an already failed tactic.

The latter reality is why you studiously avoided talking about whether common law tradition sees you as a natural person.

But the main wrench in your gears is the reality that by the very tradition of common law itself statute law is superior to common law. This means your “I can appeal to the King” argument, even if it is accurate common law, would likely be subject to the modifications of statutes and case law.

Hence the comment that you may as well pick provisions of the Hammurabi code to argue.

Ah well, it was mild fun roping and branding you.

Good luck in your legal adventures. Maybe you can win another jewelry shop in a subsequent settlement. . .or was it a flower shop?. . . I can’t recall.

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

and thats not true either, at least its not for endorsable offences, like speeding, it is true for some non endorsable offences. You dont need to set up a trust, just register your car to a Ltd company you have created, when you get a fine, just wind the company up and start another one

So much for taking responsibility for your own actions....

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by penfold9

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/maineaco.asp

The object of these "fictiones" was, of course, to give jurisdiction,

Is this the source?

The creation and use of legal fictions is to take something that is false but treat it as fact in law, allowing the law to be applicable fe a corporation or a public office/organisation such as the crown for all intents and purposes is a person (clearly false) allowing for legal personality of the entity. Also as others say, legal personality starts at birth and ends at death, however legal fictions can and are created to grant rights to such, ie a fetus although not a person can have the right to life (preventing abortion) or that the deceased will is recognized or the deceased body is still his property, ie you can not take his organs.

In regards to freemen, the issue seems to be that they believe legal personality and legal fictions are one and the same, ie i have a legal personality (or many ) therefor i am a legal fiction. I as an individual, do not have a distinct legal personality as such ie am a natural person and the law applies. but do have distinct legal personality as a voter, a driver or a worker ect. each of these things has different rules and rights applied ie as a worker certain working conditions apply or as a driver the road traffic act applies. If i want to give up certain aspects of my legal personality and thus not have certain laws/rights apply, In the case of the driver i would have to give up driving. What free men are missing is that although you can relinquish certain aspects of your legal personality, the natural person still exists, which the law applies to, this can not be given up.


As an after thought if a freeman could convince a court that they were not a person would this create a legal fiction?