Subject: A bit of a ding-dong
From: Veronica
Date: 30/8/13 10:58 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Yesterday I had a bit of a ding-dong with someone on this list - for whom I have the deepest respect.

We eventually had to “agree to disagree”.

In his world, he was right.

But, in MY world, I was right.

The ding-dong was over what “vicarious liability” meant … which – in his world – AND the Legal World – only applies to “Civil” … as opposed to “Criminal”. He pointed out that, in “Criminal”, Legalspeak allows us to have “Accomplice” and “Joint Enterprise”.

The problem with his argument – according to My World – is that THERE’S actually no such thing as “Civil”.

It’s ALL “Criminal” … or not.

These are the reasons, and they are important points to remember.

“Civil” is all about “interactions between Citizens”, where one Citizen requires remedy from another, usually (99.9999% of the time) for ‘money’.

There are TWO problems with that, IN THE REAL WORLD.

1.       “Citizen” is a Legal Fiction. It’s fictional. It doesn’t exist. It’s a State-generated ILLUSION.

2.       “Money” is an ILLUSION.

2 x ILLUSIONs don’t = One REAL.

Thus “Civil” is an ILLUSION.

“Criminal”, on the other hand, is all about “the interactions between Human Beings”.

And Human Beings are NOT “fictional”.

Thus “Criminal” is REAL … whereas “Civil” is fictional.

Thus EVERY TRESPASS upon the SOVEREIGNTY of a Human Being is either “Criminal” … or there was no TRESPASS.

The Common Law is all about “interactions between Human Beings” … so it’s REAL. It's all about "Criminal".

Thus “vicarious liability”, “accomplice” & “joint enterprise” all mean exactly the same thing … i.e. “You didn’t actually do it … but you told someone else to do it … and they did it … and it was criminal .. so YOU are liable”.

This is why I often present the maxim: “AUTHORITY can be DELEGATED, but RESPONSIBILITY can only ever be SHARED”.

And that’s what it all boils down to.

I pointed out that the Magna Carta 1215 makes absolutely no distinction between the concepts of “Civil” and “Criminal” … declaring that a “jury of one’s equals” should decide everything. That’s 12 x Human Beings UNANIMOUSLY deciding whether 1 x Human Being was right or wrong - in what they did. And that makes The Law for THAT circumstance. There’s no other Law, and there’s no other way to make it. Everything else is a FICTION.

But, sure, in the Legalspeak world ... where they try (desperately) to make some distinction between "Civil" and "Criminal" (and get themselves into masses of hot water ... and employ maximum DOUBLE-THINK to do it ... you only have to look at some of their Legal Tomes, e.g. "Archbold", etc ...) ... my friend is right.

As he points out, if you take "vicarious liability" into a Crown Court, they will tell you that you are in the wrong Court. They will tell you to go to a County Court.

The problem with them telling you that is:

1. Actually you are in EXACTLY THE RIGHT COURT (because “vicarious liability”, “accomplice” & “joint enterprise” are all actually the same thing, and they are "Criminal", and thus the meat & drink of a Crown Court)

... and ...

2. A County Court is a Star Chamber, and NOT a Court of Law ... any more than a Tennis Court is a Court of Law. So it's just an ILLUSION that deals in the ILLUSION of "Civil".