Fun with common law

[trickygimp]

Its not usual with detractors to suggest that common law is defunct or supercided by statutes. Its certainly the case that if you claim your common law right with the police, they put you down as a freeman ''nut'' and arrest you any way. This dependent on, if being arrested causes you distress can be both fun and profitable

Il stress at his point that this is my understanding and you should do your own research

The legal training of a lot of police officers is abysmal, they can commonly quote a number of rule of thumb statute provisions but have no depth of understanding on the statuary defences or indeed the conflict with common law. Non more so it seems than the police and criminal evidence act under which the bulk of their activities take place

I thought to start this off we could have a look at this area. Before someone jumps on me, The PACE act is the mechanism by which the police operate so that they don't infringe you common law right, therefore deviation from it, near, automatically does

The first point to understand it that the definitions of words used in PACE and C/L arnt always the same. lets take arrest for instance. The police will tell you that an arrest start when they say the magic words, '' your under arrest'' Any thing else they like to term '' detention'' for questioning or a search etc. Common law by stated case has arrest as any time they restrict your movements, not just by force but by instruction to stay put, therefore any use of force or instruction outside the Strict provisions Of pace, is quite likely unlawful arrest and worth about 1200 quid to you

In order for them to arrest( including detain for search) you, they need reasonable suspicion that a) crime has taken place or in some instances , is about to take place and b) that you are a perpetrator of the crime

R/S is quite a low thresh hold, some times quoted as being about 25% sure, but it precludes searches because you look a bit dodgy, are not coopering or are walking down the street late at night etc. The police are prone to invent things to justify a search like ''some one of your description'' '' lot of break ins round here etc, which will do for them to undertake the search but would need to be evidence in court if you took action against them. ie actually find the crime report with your description on it

They are also limited to searching for prohibited items or things to be used in a break in. therefore for a search to take place they need R/S you have a knife or drugs or a crowbar, they need some idea of what they are searching for and why they R/S you have one. if you can provoke them to arrest( detain) for a search where they have no such R/S. then you are quids in

A classic example would be a knife arch, declining to walk through it will cause them to arrest you for search, if all they write on your stop and search form is declined to walk through knife arch, you can more or less pop in to the station for you compo on the way home, but seriously there are no win no fee solicitors for this sort of thing, so if they will take you on your on good ground

Another good one is if your the passenger in a car( best if its a legal car to be honest) pulled over by the police. Get out and make to walk off, when the copper says '' oye you get back here'', your unlawful detention starts and you can start planning your trip to Ibiza

Il wait to see if any one chips in, before continuing

[undeadcreature]

You know I couldn't quite get my head around the point you are trying to make.

Whos definition of common law are you using by the way?

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

You know I couldn't quite get my head around the point you are trying to make.

Whos definition of common law are you using by the way?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to pass on information. If there is a subtext, its that common law and a good knowledge of it is very useful and I full accept that some of the youtube vids posted by freemen, are not examples of good knowledge

[penfold9]

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to pass on information.

Great, can you give me links to all the legislations that back the information you are providing?

The first point to understand it that the definitions of words used in PACE and C/L arnt always the same. lets take arrest for instance. The police will tell you that an arrest start when they say the magic words, '' your under arrest'' Any thing else they like to term '' detention'' for questioning or a search etc. Common law by stated case has arrest as any time they restrict your movements, not just by force but by instruction to stay put, therefore any use of force or instruction outside the Strict provisions Of pace, is quite likely unlawful arrest and worth about 1200 quid to you

Evidence please.

The police are prone to invent things to justify a search like ''some one of your description'' '' lot of break ins round here etc, which will do for them to undertake the search but would need to be evidence in court if you took action against them. ie actually find the crime report with your description on it

Evidence please.

They are also limited to searching for prohibited items or things to be used in a break in. therefore for a search to take place they need R/S you have a knife or drugs or a crowbar, they need some idea of what they are searching for and why they R/S you have one. if you can provoke them to arrest( detain) for a search where they have no such R/S. then you are quids in

Evidence please.

A classic example would be a knife arch, declining to walk through it will cause them to arrest you for search, if all they write on your stop and search form is declined to walk through knife arch, you can more or less pop in to the station for you compo on the way home, but seriously there are no win no fee solicitors for this sort of thing, so if they will take you on your on good ground

Evidence please.

Another good one is if your the passenger in a car( best if its a legal car to be honest) pulled over by the police. Get out and make to walk off, when the copper says '' oye you get back here'', your unlawful detention starts and you can start planning your trip to Ibiza

Evidence please.

Some case histories and court records would be nice.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

Great, can you give me links to all the legislations that back the information you are providing?

Evidence please.
Evidence please.

Evidence please.
Evidence please.
Evidence please.

Some case histories and court records would be nice.

Your having a laugh after your performance on the other thread, if you can point blank refuse to evidence a single point, then I'm under no obligation to you to do so. Goose and gander springs to mind

[penfold9]

I have delivered everything you asked for on the other thread, its just beyond your ability to understand it.

All the waffle you posted here is a waste of everyones time.
You are going to get people in trouble posting idiotic comments like that.

You are beginning to sound like a freeman guru, dean clifford better watch out.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

I have delivered everything you asked for on the other thread, its just beyond your ability to understand it.

.

Dear God that sounds like RM

[moobs]

I'm not British, so I really have no experience or familiarity with British court cases, but just going by my common sense, some of the legal conclusions you've posted just don't sound right to me. You mentioned "knife arches" (metal detectors, right?) and implied that the police have no authority to require people to walk through - that would kind of defeat the purpose of putting them up in the first place, wouldn't it? And your car passenger scenario is just silly. If a cop is pulling someone over, the car - including everyone and everything in it - is going with them. It's a body of evidence, for lack of a better word. They are all part of the scene, part of the evidence, and nobody is allowed to interfere with it.

[penfold9]

And that is why I asked him for proof of his claims, that OP needs a disclaimer.

[georggearless]

This post made me wonder what happened to "freemen are honorable and peacefull" and how "cheat, misdirect and sponge" came to take it's place.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by moobs

I'm not British, so I really have no experience or familiarity with British court cases, but just going by my common sense, some of the legal conclusions you've posted just don't sound right to me. You mentioned "knife arches" (metal detectors, right?) and implied that the police have no authority to require people to walk through - that would kind of defeat the purpose of putting them up in the first place, wouldn't it? And your car passenger scenario is just silly. If a cop is pulling someone over, the car - including everyone and everything in it - is going with them. It's a body of evidence, for lack of a better word. They are all part of the scene, part of the evidence, and nobody is allowed to interfere with it.

No friend its quite true that there is no legal obligation to walk through a knife arch, certainly on the way out , they could refuse you entry to where ever your going, usually train stations if you refused on the way in. But it wouldn't fit the grounds for a search, specified under statute, if you did refuse

Im not sure you can class a live body as evidence

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

This post made me wonder what happened to "freemen are honorable and peacefull" and how "cheat, misdirect and sponge" came to take it's place.

Sponge, SPONGE, you think going to court to seek legal redress is sponging

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

And that is why I asked him for proof of his claims, that OP needs a disclaimer.

I think it has one ?

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

Sponge, SPONGE, you think going to court to seek legal redress is sponging

No

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

No

so your point/?

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

Its not usual with detractors to suggest that common law is defunct or supercided by statutes. Its certainly the case that if you claim your common law right with the police, they put you down as a freeman ''nut'' and arrest you any way. This dependent on, if being arrested causes you distress can be both fun and profitable.

I assume you meant "not unusual". It is not a suggestion, but a fact. In our legal system primary legislation is superior to the common law. If common law is inconsistent with subsequent legislation, the legislation wins. Were this not the case codification and rationalisation of the common law, as, for example in the Theft Act would not work.

Il stress at his point that this is my understanding and you should do your own research

The legal training of a lot of police officers is abysmal, they can commonly quote a number of rule of thumb statute provisions but have no depth of understanding on the statuary defences or indeed the conflict with common law. Non more so it seems than the police and criminal evidence act under which the bulk of their activities take place

They're policemen not lawyers. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't rely too much on the police knowing the law. It isn't their job to examine the doctrinal detail of the law. That is what courts are for and courts have found against freemen many times...

I thought to start this off we could have a look at this area. Before someone jumps on me, The PACE act is the mechanism by which the police operate so that they don't infringe you common law right, therefore deviation from it, near, automatically does

There you go again. Assuming the existence of an underlying common law. PACE regulates the police more than previous law did (though it also expanded their powers in some areas). PACE also rationalised some of the remedies for police misconduct, in particular the exclusion of evidence. But just to be clear, what common law rights did you have in mind?

The first point to understand it that the definitions of words used in PACE and C/L arnt always the same. lets take arrest for instance. The police will tell you that an arrest start when they say the magic words, '' your under arrest'' Any thing else they like to term '' detention'' for questioning or a search etc. Common law by stated case has arrest as any time they restrict your movements, not just by force but by instruction to stay put, therefore any use of force or instruction outside the Strict provisions Of pace, is quite likely unlawful arrest and worth about 1200 quid to you.

I doubt that a properly trained policeman will tell you that an arrest depends on the words "you are under arrest." It is clear in both PACE codes C and G that informing someone they are under arrest must happen as soon as practical after the arrest takes place.
You say "common law by stated case..." but don't state any cases. Lets seem some cases that support your claim. Lastly, what makes you think that an unlawful arrest is "worth about 1200 quid" It sounds as though you have just picked that figure out of the air, so if you have some evidence, let's see it.

In order for them to arrest( including detain for search) you, they need reasonable suspicion that a) crime has taken place or in some instances , is about to take place and b) that you are a perpetrator of the crime

While generally true there are a few exceptions to this rule - traffic checks under section 4, for example.

R/S is quite a low thresh hold, some times quoted as being about 25% sure, but it precludes searches because you look a bit dodgy, are not coopering or are walking down the street late at night etc. The police are prone to invent things to justify a search like ''some one of your description'' '' lot of break ins round here etc, which will do for them to undertake the search but would need to be evidence in court if you took action against them. ie actually find the crime report with your description on it

They are also limited to searching for prohibited items or things to be used in a break in. therefore for a search to take place they need R/S you have a knife or drugs or a crowbar, they need some idea of what they are searching for and why they R/S you have one. if you can provoke them to arrest( detain) for a search where they have no such R/S. then you are quids in

Are you seriously suggesting that people attempt to antagonize officers to arrest them in the hope that they will gets some compensation? I think that this is pretty dishonest (and also pretty dumb).

A classic example would be a knife arch, declining to walk through it will cause them to arrest you for search, if all they write on your stop and search form is declined to walk through knife arch, you can more or less pop in to the station for you compo on the way home, but seriously there are no win no fee solicitors for this sort of thing, so if they will take you on your on good ground

This again sounds like something you just made up, got any proof? I've never seen a knife arch which wasn't simply a check on entering a building. If you refuse to go through the metal detector, you don't get into the building, simple.

Another good one is if your the passenger in a car( best if its a legal car to be honest) pulled over by the police. Get out and make to walk off, when the copper says '' oye you get back here'', your unlawful detention starts and you can start planning your trip to Ibiza
Il wait to see if any one chips in, before continuing

And again, no support, no evidence, just your assertion and your claim that being arrested is a good money making scam.

You see, the scam which you are proposing requires one of two things:
(a) a lawyer with the police force being willing to pay out on such claims or
(b) a judge who agrees that the arrest was unlawful

I think you'd have a hard time finding either, but if you've any evidence to the contrary let's hear it.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

I assume you meant "not unusual". It is not a suggestion, but a fact. In our legal system primary legislation is superior to the common law. If common law is inconsistent with subsequent legislation, the legislation wins. Were this not the case codification and rationalisation of the common law, as, for example in the Theft Act would not work.

`

I don't think i have said different?

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

They're policemen not lawyers. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't rely too much on the police knowing the law. It isn't their job to examine the doctrinal detail of the law. That is what courts are for and courts have found against freemen many times...

No and thats rather my point, they have also found against the Police many times

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

There you go again. Assuming the existence of an underlying common law. PACE regulates the police more than previous law did (though it also expanded their powers in some areas). PACE also rationalised some of the remedies for police misconduct, in particular the exclusion of evidence. But just to be clear, what common law rights did you have in mind?

The common law right not to be unlawfully arrested

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

I doubt that a properly trained policeman will tell you that an arrest depends on the words "you are under arrest." It is clear in both PACE codes C and G that informing someone they are under arrest must happen as soon as practical after the arrest takes place.

Which is fair enough if they are wrestling you to the ground

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

You say "common law by stated case..." but don't state any cases. Lets seem some cases that support your claim. Lastly, what makes you think that an unlawful arrest is "worth about 1200 quid" It sounds as though you have just picked that figure out of the air, so if you have some evidence, let's see it.

1200 quid seems to be the going rate for unlawful arrest. What are you taking issue with so I know which case to post, That any detention is arrest under common law, really?

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

While generally true there are a few exceptions to this rule - traffic checks under section 4, for example.

section 4 of what, you still need RS to search during a traffic stop, sec 44 not with standing. They don't need RS under S60 CJA either, but i was building up to that

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

Are you seriously suggesting that people attempt to antagonize officers to arrest them in the hope that they will gets some compensation? I think that this is pretty dishonest (and also pretty dumb).

Not as dumb as being arrested and not getting compo I would suggest, which seems to be the current freeman MO

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

This again sounds like something you just made up, got any proof? I've never seen a knife arch which wasn't simply a check on entering a building. If you refuse to go through the metal detector, you don't get into the building, simple.

. They not infrequently errect them for people leaving railway stations on a Friday Sat night when they are having a blitz on knife crime

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

And again, no support, no evidence, just your assertion and your claim that being arrested is a good money making scam.

I didnt say it was a scam ?

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

You see, the scam which you are proposing requires one of two things:
(a) a lawyer with the police force being willing to pay out on such claims or
(b) a judge who agrees that the arrest was unlawful

I think you'd have a hard time finding either, but if you've any evidence to the contrary let's hear it.

Getting the police to pay out of court settlements isn't that hard, The met pays millions for unlawful arrest every year and there are enough successful cases to suggest its not impossible to win in court.

I dont normally evidence every point i make, but I will try if you genuinely have an issue with a specific point

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

so your point/?

The point of the post I made was just making a note of how fmotl ideology has changed. These days, fmotl forums (including this one) seems riddled with members who;

1. Take up loans that they attempt to get out of by saying "I'm not a person" or something to that effect, while at the same time having no problem with spending the loaned money (cheating/scamming).
2. Actively seeking out a situation where you can manipulate police into a situation where you can sue for compensation. Not to ensure your citizens rights, but to make money (misdirection/manipulation). The whole purpose of the OP is how to get money from and "having fun with" authorities.
3. Refuse to pay tax, or any other fees pertaining upkeep of public functions, but at the same time having no problem with using and benefitting from such areas as roads/infrastructure, healthcare, schooling, watersupply etc etc. In short, sponging.

As far as my knowledge of fmotl ideology goes, this was not originaly the intention or purpose. The intention was to be honourable and peacefull while at the same time providing a means to protect the individual from government interference if that was what you wished. It is in my oppinion neither honourable nor peacefull to actively seek out a conflict with said government, purely for monetary gain. In short:

This post made me wonder what happened to "freemen are honorable and peacefull" and how "cheat, misdirect and sponge" came to take it's place.

There, I just spent 10 minutes explaining a perfectly self-explanatory point. Next time, don't try and twist words with me or you will simply be ignored. If you are interested in a genuine and honest discussion about freeman ideology as well as it's practical applicaton, then you are most welcome. That's what this forum is for.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

The point of the post I made was just making a note of how fmotl ideology has changed. These days, fmotl forums (including this one) seems riddled with members who;

1. Take up loans that they attempt to get out of by saying "I'm not a person" or something to that effect, while at the same time having no problem with spending the loaned money (cheating/scamming).
2. Actively seeking out a situation where you can manipulate police into a situation where you can sue for compensation. Not to ensure your citizens rights, but to make money (misdirection/manipulation). The whole purpose of the OP is how to get money from and "having fun with" authorities.
3. Refuse to pay tax, or any other fees pertaining upkeep of public functions, but at the same time having no problem with using and benefitting from such areas as roads/infrastructure, healthcare, schooling, watersupply etc etc. In short, sponging.

As far as my knowledge of fmotl ideology goes, this was not originaly the intention or purpose. The intention was to be honourable and peacefull while at the same time providing a means to protect the individual from government interference if that was what you wished. It is in my oppinion neither honourable nor peacefull to actively seek out a conflict with said government, purely for monetary gain. In short:

This post made me wonder what happened to "freemen are honorable and peacefull" and how "cheat, misdirect and sponge" came to take it's place.

There, I just spent 10 minutes explaining a perfectly self-explanatory point. Next time, don't try and twist words with me or you will simply be ignored. If you are interested in a genuine and honest discussion about freeman ideology as well as it's practical applicaton, then you are most welcome. That's what this forum is for.

the others arnt points being raised by me, but I can see no moral dilemma in making money out of minor infractions of law committed by the powers that be. It is after all the very same philosophy that the government uses on its citizens ?

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

the others arnt points being raised by me, but I can see no moral dilemma in making money out of minor infractions of law committed by the powers that be. It is after all the very same philosophy that the government uses on its citizens ?

I think it was prudent of me to explain the other two points, lest you accuse me of thinking that "going to court to seek legal redress is cheating" or "going to court to seek legal redress is misdirection". Your (deliberate ?) misinterpretation of my initial post testifies to that.

Again you are trying to twist words. I have never said there is a moral dilemma in making money out of minor infractions of the powers that be. It is completely reasonable that you should be compensated (and money is a good way to compensate people) if you have been wronged. But it is completely UN-reasonable and DIS-honourable to actively attempt to BE wronged with the intention of making money. Do you see the moral difference?

That is what the OP is about. A post very far from the supposedly honourable and peacfull philosophy that originaly founded the basis of fmotl ideology.

And no, it is not the same philosophy that the government uses on its citizens. While we may agree on many fines being either unreasonable or overzealous, even to the point of ridicule, there is a fundamental and inherent difference between a statutory law which intention is to protect the broad spectrum of citizinry, and then tripping up a cop for personal monetary gain. As philosophies go, they could hardly be more different.