The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
KingMerv00 said:
gtm,

I also want to point out that your judges are nutty. What's the deal with them getting all involved with the facts of the case?

Those wigs need some a'splaining too.
Click to expand...

We junked jury trials for almost all civil matters (except defamation & some coroners inquests) & minor criminal matters years ago & so our Judges have to make findings of fact as well. If this wasn't the case I imagine most of us would spend most of our time doing Jury service of some form or other.

The wigs are easily explained. They were 'uniform' for 18th century gentlemen (& the gown showed you were educated) & it became standard practice to wear them. They are gradually being phased out. That being said the Criminal Bar generally approve of them. They say the wig & gown acts as a disguise (& if you've spent the day humiliating some thug on the stand you might not want him to recognise you outside the law courts - ie you're a 'wig' rather than a real person) & injects an element of 'gravitas' into the proceedings.
 
Note to gmt
ie you're a 'wig' rather than a real person
Click to expand...

Dont give the FMOTLers any more get out clauses.:)
M`lud ,you are simply a "wig" not a person, wigs are not flesh and blood humans and as such have no jurisdiction.

JB/asky
 
Last edited:
'Yours sincerely – without ill-will, vexation or frivolity'
Just a wee quote from a freeman letter. It made me chuckle i'm sure others might too.
Here's a link to the sorry story, notice the last post was made on 27th march so i'm just assuming that there hasn't been a positive outcome for the freeman otherwise they'd share their 'victory'
http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8571
 
Mojo said:
The judges in the BCA v. Singh case managed a perfectly acceptable degree of gravitas without them.
Click to expand...


Maybe but you couldn't have juicy murder trial at the Bailey without wigs - it wouldn't be the same :eek:
 
tobjai said:
I had to bring this one up again, as I previously failed to point out one important thing. To fresh up the collective memory, the cop had said the following to Josh recorded on camera: "once you go on to the highway you need to have insurance"

Now, lets assume by using the word "highway" the cop actually meant all public streets (which I'm convinced he didn't. Because, using the wording "once you are going to..." assumes that he hasn't done it yet. But he has, as he clearly didn't get pulled over for driving in his private parking lot. He just happened to be nearby, so he pulled in to avoid being towed). He did not say "once you go on the highway, you need to have a drivers licence and a vehicle registration" .... just insurance.
Click to expand...


How easy is it to get insurance for an unregistered car driven by an unlicensed driver?
 
BobHaulk said:
'Yours sincerely – without ill-will, vexation or frivolity'
Just a wee quote from a freeman letter. It made me chuckle i'm sure others might too.
Here's a link to the sorry story, notice the last post was made on 27th march so i'm just assuming that there hasn't been a positive outcome for the freeman otherwise they'd share their 'victory'
http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8571
Click to expand...

Anything less than a death sentence seems to be lauded as a "victory" for these cranks: "Ha! Yes, I've been sentenced to fourteen years for non-payment of a parking ticket! I win!"
 
There's a Swedish word "Rättshaverist" (german Rechtshaber), which seems singularly appropriate to these people.

I'll do a quick translation
Swedish Wikipedia said:
A person who is labeled as rättshaverist is seen to spend an unreasonable amount of time and energy changing decisions and judgements that go against him. The behaviour continues even when it obviously serves no purpose, and can take the form of appeals, petitions, police reports, submissions to the Constitutional Ombudsman or lawsuits. The rättshaverist might be right or wrong in his cause, but is often dismissed with the motivation that his behaviour makes a compromise impossible. The real or imagined error and the refusal to give him justice is interpreted by the rättshaverist as a form of conspiracy, which may be true, but can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There may be a kind of paradox in the behaviour of a rättshaverist. They often expect the system of justice to redress the situation, despite not perceiving society as a just one. Even the reversed paradox exists: The opponents of the rättshaverist may claim the system of justice to be working without flaw, even when the rättshaverist is correct, but still is slandered and denied justice.
Click to expand...
 
Pikachu said:
Jury challenges are very rare here now. When I started each defendant was allowed three challenges for no reason. Now all challenges must be for cause - and no vetting is allowed so cause usually means that the juror knows or is known to someone in the court.
Click to expand...
We still have peremptory challenges in Ireland (and also in NI, I believe); it happened to me three times when I served. Each side is allowed to challenge seven jurors without cause, though they cannot question potential jurors and have little (official) access to information about them.

Jurors names are basically pulled out of a hat and that's it for jury selection.
Click to expand...
Oddly I actually worked on the software used in Ireland to select jurors. Not very impressive.

Oh aye? We think the same about your cruddy system south of the Border mate......
Click to expand...
Says the man from the country with the procurators fiscal....:)
 
gtm said:
We junked jury trials for almost all civil matters (except defamation & some coroners inquests) & minor criminal matters years ago & so our Judges have to make findings of fact as well. If this wasn't the case I imagine most of us would spend most of our time doing Jury service of some form or other.

The wigs are easily explained. They were 'uniform' for 18th century gentlemen (& the gown showed you were educated) & it became standard practice to wear them. They are gradually being phased out. That being said the Criminal Bar generally approve of them. They say the wig & gown acts as a disguise (& if you've spent the day humiliating some thug on the stand you might not want him to recognise you outside the law courts - ie you're a 'wig' rather than a real person) & injects an element of 'gravitas' into the proceedings.
Click to expand...

Dang, y'all are doing everything you can to quit being picturesque, aren't you? No red telephone booths, no police call boxes (except for one), no barristers' wigs...sad...

Tell me at least the judges will have to keep their wigs. Otherwise what good did all those years reading British murder mysteries do me?
 
Elizabeth I said:
Dang, y'all are doing everything you can to quit being picturesque, aren't you? No red telephone booths, no police call boxes (except for one), no barristers' wigs...sad...

Tell me at least the judges will have to keep their wigs. Otherwise what good did all those years reading British murder mysteries do me?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with these sentiments (although I think there are a few red phone boxes left but since the advent of the mobile phone they are mostly used as impromtu lavatories / vomitoriums by our 'playful' youth)

If you're ever in London town nip along to the Royal Courts of Justice - they have a museum of judicial costume on the ground floor. I've spent many a happy hour there whilst waiting for something to happen & some of the clothing is massively camp.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom