"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[SteveUK]

More win (!!!1!!) from Margo



It would seem they don't care about her offer 'to pay under duress'.

Hi.so this is respond from housing to payment under duress. Court received removal of implied right of access on06th April.sent payment under duress yesterday off.they havent receive yet.

She'll be out soon I imagine.

[Hercule Parrot]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

Crabs not happy with us "debunkers".
Just because you can read Crab, doesn't necessarily mean you understand the content.

The Magna Carta was written in Mediaeval Latin and translated into English, and I am English (mixed with many other Europeans blood). I can read, write and understand English. It was written in relatively simple terms. It wasn't written to be read and 'interpreted' by lawyers, because they did not exist (in any sufficient numbers) at the time. Put simply, it was written in a way that could be readily translated so as to be understood by those who speak, read, and write the English language. Therefore my understanding is comparable to that of anyone else. It may be that, at the time it was written, few could read it in Feudal England. But that is not the case today.

Where to start? He admits he don't know what the original text says, he's relying on a translation by an unknown person. Maybe the original Latin text is a dirty limerick about the Queen of Spain, he has no idea. And there was no intention at that time that the text of MC1215 should be understood by ordinary British serfs - remember that the concept of printing didn't arrive until 400 years later. Wikipedia suggests that the first English version was published in 1527 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#16th_century)

He also claims MC1215 was written in plain, clear terms, but experts at the British Library describe it somewhat differently - "The text of Magna Carta of 1215 bears many traces of haste, and is the product of much bargaining. Most of its clauses deal with specific, and often long-standing, grievances rather than with general principles of law. Some of the grievances are clear; others can be understood only in the context of the feudal society in which they arose. The precise meaning of a few clauses is still uncertain" (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/m ... ranslation)

Furthermore the original (1215) Magna Carta pre-dates any 'parliament'. And it was written with the general approval of the English (mixed with many other Europeans blood) Nation in an effort to define how a decent, just, and non-tyrannical society could function. Pre-dating Parliament, as it does, means that it falls outside to scope of any later Parliamentary attempts to modify it, or otherwise water it down. To do this is an act of treason against our nation as a whole, since it forms the basis, or bedrock, for the British Constitution. Therefore to assert (as some do) that the Magna Carta is simply an icon is fallacious. Article 61,clearly states that assertions designed to undermine it are null & void

So full of wrongness. The UK parliamentary system dates back to the Witenagemot and Moots, long before MC1215. Eg: "The first recorded act of a witenagemot was the law code issued by King Æthelberht of Kent ca. 600, the earliest document which survives in sustained Old English prose; however, the witan was certainly in existence long before this time. Altogether, about 2000 charters and 40 law codes survive which attest to the workings of the various meetings of the witan, of which there are around 300 recorded." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagem ... imitations)

As for MC1215 being "written with the general approval of the English ... to define how a decent, just, and non-tyrannical society could function", that's utter balderdash. MC1215 was simply a power-grab by rebellious Barons, at a moment when the King was weak. The common people were not consulted, and their opinion counted for nothing. At that time in history, a commoner was merely bipedal livestock to be worked, taxed or sent into battle as convenient for the rich and powerful.

And finally.... "it falls outside to scope of any later Parliamentary attempts to modify it". Um, no, it really doesn't, Crabby. The whole point of democratic Parliamentary franchise is to supersede and contain the Royal Prerogative. We have taken the power to set aside the whims of our Kings, and we have used it to abolish and repeal countless numbers of their mediaeval laws. This is the real Lawful Rebellion, the largely peaceful manoeuvring of our Monarchy into a toothless and symbolic tourist attraction.

(PS - I fully realise I'm wasting my time here, because Crabby doesn't really believe any of this anyway. He's not interested in facts or law, only in potential excuses to weasel out of his debts and obligations. Like the "Insurance? LOL!" idiot, he has so little honesty or decency that he'll cling to any lie if it favours his selfish desires)

[Hercule Parrot]

It would seem they don't care about her offer 'to pay under duress'.

Hi.so this is respond from housing to payment under duress. Court received removal of implied right of access on 06th April.sent payment under duress yesterday off.they havent receive yet.

More significant perhaps, they haven't yet received the payment. If she posted it recently, and if it fully meets the arrears, and if the payment is in actual money (rather than A4V, PN's or werecheque etc) then she might not be evicted right now. Another triumph for the Clause 61 LorFull Reybles!

Hope is not lost however. We can expect a continuing squabble over court costs and future rent liabilities, with David Robinson urging her onwards towards the Sally Army hostel.

[AndyPandy]

What Crab Bait (aka Robert White) is quoting from was originally written by Veronica Chapman in 2009.

http://www.veronicachapman.com/vlinks/M ... icle61.htm

[AndyPandy]

It would seem they don't care about her offer 'to pay under duress'.

Hi.so this is respond from housing to payment under duress. Court received removal of implied right of access on 06th April.sent payment under duress yesterday off.they havent receive yet.

More significant perhaps, they haven't yet received the payment. If she posted it recently, and if it fully meets the arrears, and if the payment is in actual money (rather than A4V, PN's or werecheque etc) then she might not be evicted right now. Another triumph for the Clause 61 LorFull Reybles!

Hope is not lost however. We can expect a continuing squabble over court costs and future rent liabilities, with David Robinson urging her onwards towards the Sally Army hostel.

Both the Court and the Housing Association have stated she needs to apply to suspend the repossession order, but of course none of her new 'friends' will let her deal with the 'non courts' so that order will still stand regardless of whether she pays the arrears or not.

[JimUk1]

What Crab Bait (aka Robert White) is quoting from was originally written by Veronica Chapman in 2009.

http://www.veronicachapman.com/vlinks/M ... icle61.htm

Blimey! I'm hardly surprised though. Conspiracy theorists continually dig up old articles to reinforce twisted logic. These people wouldn't look out of place at a David Icke convention.

[SteveUK]

All the stars are aligned for a hilarious PLD eviction.

[exiledscouser]

When I referred Robinson to Wolfie Smith a little earlier, little did I realise the actual parallels.

Here's the original on his way to take over the Houses of Parliament not realising that there's no-one there - it's summer holidays ;



Here's Mr. R in full flow 'seizing' Glastonbury Town Hall in 2014 looking like a shabby advert for Army Surplus stores. He has a dwarfish side kick, the bearded Gary OTF Butler, kitted out like a geriatric Serbian warlord and there are various hangers-on groupie harridans to complete the mix.

All of his followers 'storm' and 'seize' the place (all six or so of them), shouting 'TREASON!' and displaying faux outrage.

Eventually the Mayor ("John") has had enough and leaves them to it but not before issuing handshakes all round. This is, after all, Glastonbury. Plod turns up at about 17 minutes. Well, two PCSOs actually which for non Brits are cut price bobbies with no power of arrest and an over-fondness for doughnuts. They pull up some chairs, sit down and proceed to have a genial chat about things then call it a day. At 25 mins the real cops turn up and its another sixth-form debating session but being as this is Glastonbury an all it is the height of civility and manners. I'd hate to think what would've happened if a van load of Merseyside or GMP Tactical Aid had just happened to be calling by for a cuppa with "John". By 40mins it's all over, the very nice police decide they are at risk of being bored to death; they too leave. Result and total victory!!!111!!!!

However, they're left with a dilemma. The caretaker wants to lock up and go home for the night so to save him being late for his common-law right to supper and to 'remain in honour' they decide to call it a day.

Rather sadly they then give the place back.

Still, the foundations of British society are crumbling.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The common people were not consulted, and their opinion counted for nothing. At that time in history, a commoner was merely bipedal livestock to be worked, taxed or sent into battle as convenient for the rich and powerful.

And illiterate...er....OK that bit hasn't changed with FMOTL.

[SteveUK]

They're now getting their knickers in a twist over which is best - LR or OPPT lol

[aesmith]

More significant perhaps, they haven't yet received the payment. If she posted it recently, and if it fully meets the arrears, and if the payment is in actual money (rather than A4V, PN's or werecheque etc) then she might not be evicted right now.

I don't know what sort of tenancy she has, but for the sorts that I've dealt with a repossession would not necessarily be prevented even if the rent arrears was repaid. For example in a Scottish Assured tenancy it would be mandatory ground if three months arrears exist when notice is served and still exist at the time of the hearing. Discretionary grounds apply if arrears are less than 3 months, or "the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due."

In none of those cases would the court decision be overturned purely because the arrears had been made up.

[longdog]

They're now getting their knickers in a twist over which is best - LR or OPPT lol

People's Front of Judea?

[SteveUK]

They're now getting their knickers in a twist over which is best - LR or OPPT lol

People's Front of Judea?

Exactly like that lol . They're so amusing to watch - just staggering from one stupid "remedy" to the next.

[JimUk1]

https://youtu.be/jWT6t2SsLy0

(Not sure I've time stamped it correctly, so from 40 seconds in)

That's how I like to think David and his rebel chums view themselves.

[ArthurWankspittle]

More significant perhaps, they haven't yet received the payment. If she posted it recently, and if it fully meets the arrears, and if the payment is in actual money (rather than A4V, PN's or werecheque etc) then she might not be evicted right now.

I don't know what sort of tenancy she has, but for the sorts that I've dealt with a repossession would not necessarily be prevented even if the rent arrears was repaid. For example in a Scottish Assured tenancy it would be mandatory ground if three months arrears exist when notice is served and still exist at the time of the hearing. Discretionary grounds apply if arrears are less than 3 months, or "the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due."

In none of those cases would the court decision be overturned purely because the arrears had been made up.

Also depends on the type of notice as well as the reason. England and Wales (IIRC) has a "2 months and you are out if the paperwork is correct". If they are going for eviction on the basis of arrears then payment in full would prevent eviction (again IIRC) but, FMOTLs please note, that is payment in cash or maybe bankers draft, anything else can be refused and is likely to be.

[Hercule Parrot]

They're now getting their knickers in a twist over which is best - LR or OPPT lol

I think it's more than that. Seems that David R wants to be the One True Prophet, and is now manoeuvring against other alt-theories and leaders. They are either with him, or against him. There can be no compromise, no finding of one's own path.

Tom Crawford, do ye recant thy heresy?


Guy Taylor is hereby excommunicated..


The method did not fail them, they failed the method..


Get behind me, 38 Degrees shill...


I haz awsum skillz...


Despite this evidently cult-like grooming, the PLD FB group seems very busy. And it's accumulating a number of fanatical idiots who are excited by the opportunity to evade taxes and/or overthrow democracy by violence:


Remarkable that David Robinson, an inadequate, ageing welfare-scrounging fool, should emerge as a guru here. His insignificant and ineffective life is no example of success in challenging the system. He can't even get them to pay his disability benefit, FFS. But PLD is definitely becoming flavour of the month for the drifting malcontents on Facebook, and DR's confident advice should provide a rich crop of fails and disasters in the coming months.

[Hercule Parrot]

https://youtu.be/jWT6t2SsLy0
(Not sure I've time stamped it correctly, so from 40 seconds in)
That's how I like to think David and his rebel chums view themselves.

Or maybe https://youtu.be/7yeA7a0uS3A?t=26s

[aesmith]

Also depends on the type of notice as well as the reason. England and Wales (IIRC) has a "2 months and you are out if the paperwork is correct". If they are going for eviction on the basis of arrears then payment in full would prevent eviction (again IIRC) but, FMOTLs please note, that is payment in cash or maybe bankers draft, anything else can be refused and is likely to be.

Th bit I've highlighted would depend on what grounds were given. I've just had a look and the grounds in England are pretty much the same, except that the mandatory ground may be as little as 8 weeks arrears. Payment or even part payment prior to the hearing would prevent possession being granted on that particular basis.

However there are also discretionary grounds including "Some rent lawfully due from the tenant is unpaid on the date on which the proceedings for possession are begun" and "Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due. "

Normal practice in Scotland is to cite our equivalent of all three grounds, so that a bad paying tenant can't necessarily get off the hook solely by making a payment or part payment at the last minute.

After the hearing, it would take an application to court to get the decision set aside and as far as I'm aware the reasons for set aside would solely relate to circumstances at the time of the hearing, not on later payment.

However I'm more familiar with the processes in Scotland so would be interested if anyone points out otherwise.

[JimUk1]

https://youtu.be/jWT6t2SsLy0
(Not sure I've time stamped it correctly, so from 40 seconds in)
That's how I like to think David and his rebel chums view themselves.

Or maybe https://youtu.be/7yeA7a0uS3A?t=26s

By the power of the Barons, we have Magna Carta!

Dave if your reading this please do a video of yourselves doing that, it would be super hilarious! More so then reading the comments!

[JimUk1]

Blimey! Here is the man in action!-

https://youtu.be/l0gjP-pUoSA

He's certainly been around a fair while! Now that others have deserted GODF,
it appears David may step in and fill the void!

And here is his 2 minutes of fame on UK column-
https://youtu.be/17pyU4y_1b0

If you have the stomach for it!

And he went into full Freeman rant 6 years ago with this David Ward (Former diplomat at the house of Ward) style affidavit-

https://jforjustice.net/download/Affida ... truth.html