Oops! Perhaps Schopenhauers truth theory has already reached the second stage. :lol
Well thank you for the potted history lesson breadlord but we could have googled that for ourselves. I'm not sure what those comments are meant to add to the discussion though? You don't say if you believe the refutation of statute law has any basis in Common law? Is it valid? Or even how you know this? Forget Schopenhauer, what is your evaluation of the question? Surely you would know if you are qualified to make such bold statements, or are you prepared to condemn people as 'mentalists' without even looking into the facts? Please tell us what you know so we can all go check what you say against cold empirical evidence. :)
Right then, here we go...
I am well aware of the arguments you're spouting off. I've been involved with the occupy movement, and anti-Tory groups in general, and this dreck was pushed at a lot of us. Most of us however, aren't conspiracy nuts. We just want to see people pay what they owe.
The position you are espousing is that of the "Freemen on the land", a libertarian group who consider statutory law to be a series of contracts that can be opted out of by speaking the right words - if you send a cheque for a pound on a £2,000 bill it should clear the whole thing if you write "In full and final settlement". That kind of thing.
Essentially, the argument goes that statutory law, that is, law that is codified is merely a contract, and that you can hack your way through the system, right? Common law, or case law is meant to be the only real law that applies to a person, and not a legal entity joined to them. Generally this takes the form of invoking 61st clause of the Magna Carta. This gave the barons the right to usurp the king's power. But it only applied for three months and was repealed by the only entity who could judge a king at the time, the Pope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Clause_61However, if it's the case that common law can override the statutory, then surely court, the common law body should recognise them, right?
Errr. No. The case law supports the opposite. Every time someone tries to invoke freeman arguments they get shot the fuck down. Here's just a couple of hilarious examples:
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/9918044.Jail_for_man_who_refused__to_be_governed_/http://www.scotsman.com/news/freemen-are-told-they-will-be-tried-1-1523844http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.htmlhttp://bc.ctvnews.ca/a-person-is-a-person-b-c-judge-rules-1.524099In all cases, it's some deluded twat who gets caught doing something, then uses pseudolaw to bullshit their way out of it. It doesn't work. Ever.
Frankly, what seems to have happened here is that you committed ABH and were jailed for it. You weren't afforded the same treatment as others having committed the same crime, for which it is a sensible thing to be pissed about. However, you have since concluded that the government has no right to have tried you, not that rich people have an advantage. This might be all balled up with hate for fucking Thatcher, which is also a fine thing in itself.
Feel free to tell me that the UK is under maritime law.
Or that I can avoid speeding tickets by referring to myself as "Tom, of the family Bradshaw" as it dissociates me from my legal Strawman
Or that the meaning of words used in legal documents can be twisted to mean anything at all.
NONE of what you have said is true
It is ALL angry armchair politics
There is no global conspiracy designed to keep us in serfdom
I don't know you, you could be a top lad, but this kind of thing is mental, and beneath you.