Covid Deniers and Anti Vaxxers

[quilp]

That's just mad that is. They need dealing with. 

[Roger Mexico]

Are these actually legal writs are they just self-invented 'writs' from self-invented 'courts'?

[The Old Git]

Just now, Roger Mexico said:

Are these actually legal writs are they just self-invented 'writs' from self-invented 'courts'?

They’re half writs. 
 

Just made up bollocks

There’s video of around 20 of them hanging around on his street corner while two of them delivered the “writ”

[quilp]

Who he? 🤭

[Gladys]

I wonder if any new MHKs have stumped up their half million? 

[The Chief]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

The main letters and Nuremberg trial threats seem to be driven by that total crackpot Heading and some of his acolytes. He’s a man who needs dealing with. 

Heading is a loudmouth who just wants to spout, it was statins before now its Corona, unfortunately the island breed enough simpletons to buy into the bullshit he comes up with.

The Magna Carta and Nuremberg are not applicable under any common or legal precedence, there are numerous articles by actual real life proper lawyers that go over all the claims and refute every single one (conveniently ignored by the Anti's).

This is their last chance to grift the last few pounds off the simpletons as the rest of world moves on so they are getting loud.

[John Wright]

[somewhatdamaged]

@John Wright What's the situation with people trying to apply "common law" when taken to court (as an example that Laxey chap who was caught swimming is using it as a defence i believe), is there any merit in these claims, and could it / has this defence ever worked on the IOM? I have a friend who claims "loads of his mates have used common law to get out of stuff".

He also claimed the Clintons were harvesting adrenochrome from children, so of course i'm skeptical...

Edited October 12, 2021 by somewhatdamaged

[kevster]

18 minutes ago, somewhatdamaged said:

@John Wright What's the situation with people trying to apply "common law" when taken to court (as an example that Laxey chap who was caught swimming is using it as a defence i believe), is there any merit in these claims, and could it / has this defence ever worked on the IOM? I have a friend who claims "loads of his mates have used common law to get out of stuff".

He also claimed the Clintons were harvesting adrenochrome from children, so of course i'm skeptical...

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it common law is 'law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes'

What these loonies are citing as common law is made up rubbish

Edited October 12, 2021 by kevster

[John Wright]

39 minutes ago, somewhatdamaged said:

@John Wright What's the situation with people trying to apply "common law" when taken to court (as an example that Laxey chap who was caught swimming is using it as a defence i believe), is there any merit in these claims, and could it / has this defence ever worked on the IOM? I have a friend who claims "loads of his mates have used common law to get out of stuff".

He also claimed the Clintons were harvesting adrenochrome from children, so of course i'm skeptical...

 

22 minutes ago, kevster said:

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it common law is 'law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes'

What these loonies are citing as common law is made up rubbish

What @kevster said. It’s the same old same old freeman of the land rubbish, that has no application

[manxman1980]

The way I explain common law to those who are not familiar with the concept is that we have the written law (contained in statutes) and the decisions made by the courts which interpret how those statutes are applied.  It is these decisions that become common law. 

When you hear a legal professional referring to the judgements in previous cases that is common law.  They are trying to show the judge that the facts of their case are similar or the same to a previous case which has the outcome they want.

Not all court decisions become common law though.  In my field a decision at an Employment Tribunal does not become common law, however, a decision at an Employment Appeal Tribunal does (although that can be overturned in higher courts).

[Gladys]

Common law (the real one) goes wider than application of statute, it is a body of law in itself, as you say, based on precedent, and sometimes statute codifies existing common law principles. 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

The way I explain common law to those who are not familiar with the concept is that we have the written law (contained in statutes) and the decisions made by the courts which interpret how those statutes are applied.  It is these decisions that become common law. 

When you hear a legal professional referring to the judgements in previous cases that is common law.  They are trying to show the judge that the facts of their case are similar or the same to a previous case which has the outcome they want.

Not all court decisions become common law though.  In my field a decision at an Employment Tribunal does not become common law, however, a decision at an Employment Appeal Tribunal does (although that can be overturned in higher courts).

No. Completely wrong. Previous decisions are precedent, that can  be  decisions about what a statute means and how if applies or deciding what the common law is, and how it applies. Whether the precedent binds and must be followed depends on level of court and tribunal

As for common law in employment tribunals, what you describe is binding precedent. One employment tribunal can’t bind another.

Employment tribunals apply common law all the time. For instance most of the rules of contract formation are common law.

The clever answer would be that we don’t have common law in the Island, nor Magna Carta. We have Breast Law and the Act of Settlement.

The Act of Settlement is possibly more important than Magna Carta. Magna Carta was revoked by the pope and then re-enacted by parliament several times. Very little is left. It only applied between the King and his major barons. Not to little ordinary people. 

The Act of Settlement was between the Earl of Derby and the ordinary people, it arose out of land rent reforms after the Civil War. Derby got higher rent, the tenants got what was effectively freehold inheritable land. Important in an agrarian society.

in England, for ordinary people the much more important charter was the Charter of Forests, about the same time as Magna Carta. Parts of the Forest Charter were still in force in 1971

[Ghost Ship]

The simplest way to explain the difference between common law and staute law is (1) that common law is what the courts (ie judges) have said or decided the law is, (2) that staute law is law made or passed by Parliament - or whatever the appropriate legislative assembly is, and (3) if statute law conflicts with previous common law decisions, then statute law  takes priority and overrides the earlier common law.  It's this last bit (3) that freemen on the land ignore or completely fail to understand when they bang on about common law.

Generally, if someone either raises Magna Carta in support of their position or they tell you that staute law can't overturn common law, you know you are talking to someone who is way out of their depth and might well be heading for serious trouble with the law.

The legal systems of some countries don't have what we would recognise as common law, and the laws in those countries are basically all codified in what we might recognise as statutes.  Whether freemen on the land "eccentrics" exist in non-common law jurisdictions I don't know, but I suspect they can't as they'd have nothing to base their deluded arguments on.

[Roger Mexico]

34 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

The legal systems of some countries don't have what we would recognise as common law, and the laws in those countries are basically all codified in what we might recognise as statutes.  Whether freemen on the land "eccentrics" exist in non-common law jurisdictions I don't know, but I suspect they can't as they'd have nothing to base their deluded arguments on.

Non-common law jurisdictions tend to have written constitutions which all other laws operate under and the equivalents in such countries, notably the US, base their delusions on their 'constitutional rights'.  Of course as far as they are concerned the constitution reads "You can do whatever you like and everyone one else has to do what you like as well".

To some extent the whole 'freeman of the land' nonsense (which has zero historical basis) is an attempt to mimic the US and  its relationship to its constitution.  So it's really the other way round with then making common law into a pseudo-constitution, which as you say is legal nonsense.