The law is the law

davis

dhope wrote:

Bet you don't believe in homoeopathy (sic) either :roll:

Is that when someone feels bad about being gay?

Edit: Didn't realise that was an actual real spelling. Oh well, it makes sense, and it makes my otherwise hilarious gag fall flat.

chris_bass

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

no, definitely not!

The fact I work for an energy company and depending on your supplier this could very well come straight out of my wages has nothing to do with this. If you think it does, that is just because that is what they want you to think.

tgotb

Veronese68 wrote:

davis wrote:

A very good analogy

It's not *that* good an analogy; although it's not man-made (and therefore presumably not a machine), I can think of at least one perpetual motion system.

Back on topic - Manc33, is it really wise to be discussing this on a publicly-accessible forum? What if the people who are trying to control us find out? :shock:

chris_bass

I wonder if that girl knew she would start all of this?

walkingbootweather

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

No, but it may be possible to pay by means of a spider drawing

First.Aspect

TGOTB wrote:

although it's not man-made (and therefore presumably not a machine), I can think of at least one perpetual motion system.

In which case you haven't understood it ...

surrey_commuter

walkingbootweather wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

No, but it may be possible to pay by means of a spider drawing

This description sounds familiar

Whether tongue in cheek or the ramblings of an absolute madman,

elbowloh

walkingbootweather wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

No, but it may be possible to pay by means of a spider drawing

Some of his other blog posts are equally brilliant.

I love the one about the official complaints his colleague has made about him at work.
http://www.27bslash6.com/f26a.html

tgotb

First Aspect wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

although it's not man-made (and therefore presumably not a machine), I can think of at least one perpetual motion system.

In which case you haven't understood it ...

I was about to write a smug reply (I thought I had a special case, albeit one from which energy can't be extracted) but Wikipedia, of all places, highlighted the flaw in my argument :oops:

This thread's not far off, though, generating a very large quantity of hot air from almost nothing.

Manc33

Why do legal documents have names in block capitals?

elbowloh

Manc33 wrote:

Why do legal documents have names in block capitals?

This bloody better have a really good punch line.

I don't know, why do legal document have names in block capitals.

Ian.B

Manc33 wrote:

Why do legal documents have names in block capitals?

Stylistic choice? Habit? Anyway, some do, some don't. If you want to have your name in a legal document in lower case, italics, your choice of font, copperplate handwriting, green ink, whatever, then do. But why do I have a strange inkling you may have a weird conspiracy theory about this?

Manc33

Ian.B wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Why do legal documents have names in block capitals?

Stylistic choice? Habit? Anyway, some do, some don't. If you want to have your name in a legal document in lower case, italics, your choice of font, copperplate handwriting, green ink, whatever, then do. But why do I have a strange inkling you may have a weird conspiracy theory about this?

Since an external entity (a court) produces that paperwork, how could you have "your choice" of how the text appears?

In Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd Edition a person is defined as a corporation. Sorry, there's no theory about it. Go grab a copy of that book and look what it says under "PERSON" and the sub-heading "Artificial persons". When you're called a PERSON you're not being referred to as a human being, but a corporate entity.

There are even liars now claiming Blacks Law dictionary is a hoax... lol. If that is true, why are lawyers using it. :roll: People will do anything to make sure people don't find this out.

One guy said "I asked a lawyer" lol, lawyers don't know about it because they aren't taught it and if they did know they wouldn't want to tell you about it because it stops any and all repeat custom, which is all 99% of court cases are - commercial revenue.

Keep calling all of this a theory if you want but its there for all to see.



Note that the dictionary itself also lists these terms in block capitals. Thats because it is wall to wall Statute Law. Natural law or what we call "Common Law" always existed, before we could even speak words, when we were apes in fact. One ape bashes another and they all know its wrong, there it is. This is the immutable "lawful" law that is the real law. Humans can come along and invent whatever confusing legal systems they want, but that has nothing to do with, well crime even. A crime can only take place if harm or loss occurs. Since asking you to pay a tax is a loss the other way (to you) it seems ironic that prosecutions would take place for people "not" paying it. All you're "not" doing is suffering an unlawful financial loss, which is only unlawful if you know exactly to the letter what to say in court, because some people do win some cases doing this, you know, the people that get called fruitloops, why would that be lol. Because no one has anything else so the insults come out.

Kieran_Burns

Wow. Just wow. It's even there in front of you and you utterly misinterpret what it says.

Mind boggling.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

In Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd Edition a person is defined as a corporation.

Strong in this one the Special is.

Perhaps reading isn't your forte; perhaps comprehension isn't. Perhaps neither are. But that definition tells you that "artificial persons", "natural persons" and "private persons" are all sub-sets of "persons". It doesn't tell you all all "persons" are "artificial persons" of the corporate type any more than it tells you that all "persons" are "private persons" (which would be equally valid, but conflicting conclusion applying your so-called reasoning).

PS: Blacks is an American legal dictionary. We have Stroud's Judicial dictionary over here.

Manc33 wrote:

Note that the dictionary itself also lists these terms in block capitals. Thats because it is wall to wall Statute Law. Natural law or what we call "Common Law" always existed, before we could even speak words, when we were apes in fact. One ape bashes another and they all know its wrong, there it is. This is the immutable "lawful" law that is the real law. Humans can come along and invent whatever confusing legal systems they want, but that has nothing to do with, well crime even. A crime can only take place if harm or loss occurs. Since asking you to pay a tax is a loss the other way (to you) it seems ironic that prosecutions would take place for people "not" paying it. All you're "not" doing is suffering an unlawful financial loss, which is only unlawful if you know exactly to the letter what to say in court, because some people do win some cases doing this, you know, the people that get called fruitloops, why would that be lol. Because no one has anything else so the insults come out.

I'll just leave that there. It is brilliantly incoherent nonsense.

And that bit in bold: fuck the fuck off they do. They really don't, and no amount of you parading yourself as a misguided fool claiming that they do will change that. Ever.

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

That definition tells you that "artificial persons", "natural persons" and "private persons" are all sub-sets of "persons". It doesn't tell you all all "persons" are "artificial persons" of the corporate type any more than it tells you that all "persons" are "private persons" (which would be equally valid, but conflicting conclusion applying your so-called reasoning).

The fact that "PERSON" is divided into three sub-sections means the lawyers can just switch to using any one of the three they wish to use. My original statement still stands.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

PS: Blacks is an American legal dictionary. We have Stroud's Judicial dictionary over here.

Do we? We have another one too, guess what it is called... Blacks Law dictionary.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

if you know exactly to the letter what to say in court, because some people do win some cases doing this

I'll just leave that there. It is brilliantly incoherent nonsense.

And that bit in bold: fark the fark off they do. They really don't, and no amount of you parading yourself as a misguided fool claiming that they do will change that. Ever.

There's nothing incoherent I said.

Here's another way to say it: If you are a master at legalese (knowing all the meanings of words in a legal context) you can simply not consent in cases where no harm or loss was caused.

There are grey areas, I'm not saying there aren't. Some cases of someone not paying some fee might be construed as a financial loss to someone else, but it is non-existent almost. The court certainly can't claim you not paying them is them "suffering" a loss.

chris_bass

If that's the case, why don't these "experts" help out wealthy business men, celebrities even footballers? If it were true they'd make a killing. Wayne Rooney alone pays over £100k a week in tax.

pblakeney

Chris Bass wrote:

If that's the case, why don't these "experts" help out wealthy business men, celebrities even footballers? If it were true they'd make a killing. Wayne Rooney alone pays over £100k a week in tax.

Does he?
I always doubted that. Even then that would only be on his salary. What about all his sponsorships?
I presume anyone earning that amount of cash will use a clever accountant.

dhope

Chris Bass wrote:

If that's the case, why don't these "experts" help out wealthy business men

Pay attention, we've already covered that :roll:
Apparently there is no appetite yet for people wanting to pretend laws don't apply to them.
If there were then you'd probably have heard tales of tax avoidance recen... oh.
Anyway, Manc33 said that we're not ready for it yet, the country is still too busy laughing at him. But eventually we'll be ready. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.

Ian.B

Manc33 wrote:

Ian.B wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Why do legal documents have names in block capitals?

Stylistic choice? Habit? Anyway, some do, some don't. If you want to have your name in a legal document in lower case, italics, your choice of font, copperplate handwriting, green ink, whatever, then do. But why do I have a strange inkling you may have a weird conspiracy theory about this?

Since an external entity (a court) produces that paperwork, how could you have "your choice" of how the text appears?

Courts don't write contracts. Anyone can. You can write one yourself. Lawyers will write them for you, if you ask them to, and if you ask them to write your name in lower case green italics or whatever takes your fancy they will do so, although they may think you are a bit bonkers.

Manc33 wrote:

A crime can only take place if harm or loss occurs. Since asking you to pay a tax is a loss the other way (to you) it seems ironic that prosecutions would take place for people "not" paying it. All you're "not" doing is suffering an unlawful financial loss

But if you're not paying your taxes, your contribution to the society in which you live, everyone else in your community/society suffers a loss because they have to make up for your failure to pay your way. Surely you can see that?

Manc33 wrote:

because some people do win some cases doing this, you know, the people that get called fruitloops, why would that be lol.

We're still waiting for you to give us any examples of this.

As for the rest, I refer to the comments of my learned colleagues Greg and Kieran.

Manc33

Tax is a bad one to choose and most probably would take the most complicated legalese to get out of, if it were even possible to.

Dropping litter, swearing, not wearing a seat belt, "illegal" parking are more the "crimes" that are being contested. People being evicted when they asked for a copy of their mortgage agreement and did not receive it in due time, or at all. Yeah they stopped paying their mortgage - because there's no proof there is one.

It can't be fair that a man can come along and say "Ha, you owe me £80" just because you used a swear word in public. I think we all know things have gone too far if that is happening. Why not roll out Hitler v2.0 while they are at it. One thing doesn't match up with the other. The "criminal" loses £80 and there is no real world damage done by his "actions" (no action at all, speaking a word).

Its a lot like the ruling on PPI claims actually - it was ruled that the "bank charges" were disproportionate for the actions of the person that had the bank account. Why should it work any different for the legal system? If it can be shown that a fine is vastly disproportionate to the alleged "crime".

This also ties into why people don't get hung anymore. In the 1600s the last person was hanged for petty crime, before that you could be killed by the legal system if you stole a loaf of bread. The case where it changed, a girl had stolen a blanket in winter, the judged ruled that because she would have died if she had not got hold of a blanket from somewhere, she can live. How kind.

All of that ties in together where the punishment has to fit the crime.

A mild form of legal tax evasion was eluded to above talking about wealthy people getting accountants. If it is impossible to escape paying tax, how do some wealthy people just pay no tax whatsoever? The accountant knows how to legally do it thats how. NEWSFLASH: All accountants are now fruitloops! :roll: It just shows the mastery required to do it. The "best" accountants probably have their clients paying absolutely nothing out in tax. The average Joe can't afford their services.

chris_bass

So do you think it is ok for people to drop litter, not wear seat belts and park illegally?

People enter into mortgage agreements knowing the terms, to try and wriggle your way out of it is in effect stealing, if you don't like the interest you have to pay, don't get a mortgage, job done.

First.Aspect

Has anyone read his blog posts?

Its Ricky Gervais posting as Manc33, I'm sure it is.

davis

Well, he's got the wrong end of the stick, but he does appear to be holding it really, really tight

Norky

davis wrote:

Well, he's got the wrong end of the stick, but he does appear to be holding it really, really tight

It might even be the wrong stick.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

People being evicted when they asked for a copy of their mortgage agreement and did not receive it in due time, or at all. Yeah they stopped paying their mortgage - because there's no proof there is one.

Do you actually know what a mortgage is, and how one is created?

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

This also ties into why people don't get hung anymore. In the 1600s the last person was hanged for petty crime

Only out by about 300 years, that is pretty close for you.

The Rookie

The stick is a turd and he's hoping to pick it up by the clean end!

'Right words in the right order' sounds like a defence against the dark arts instructor at Hogwarts, and about as likely to work in our world as 'wingardium leviosa' is to replace BA!

surrey_commuter

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

This also ties into why people don't get hung anymore. In the 1600s the last person was hanged for petty crime

Only out by about 300 years, that is pretty close for you.

Pictures are hung... people are hanged

bendertherobot

There is no stick.