Ok Here is one for ya..!

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby knightron » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:53 am

Since I have been browsing these forums I have seen on many occasions that people are going into to "court Hearings" and coming away with the shit end of the stick and it Got me thinking and researching. When Treeman posted a Link, I followed it and my head almost exploded with what I found. It all started to make sense to me why we are being over looked and shunned in courts.

Now... I am not a solicitor, nor am I an expert in Law, I am however an avid researcher and find it incredibly interesting how laws and rules are made and given force.
Please give me as much feedback as you can, good or bad. :grin: :ouch: I want to help find the answer to our Problems, and I think if we look into their rules and regs and take them apart, we will be able to slap them about with em when they try to impose them on us..


This is taken From Halsbury's....
1206. Proper law of the arbitration agreement.

The proper law of the arbitration agreement governs its validity, interpretation and effect. That proper law is determined in accordance with the general principles of the conflict of laws, namely the law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such choice, the law of the country with which the agreement is most closely connected. An agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration usually forms part of a substantive con-tract, for example a contract of sale, but is to be treated as a separate contract. Normally the proper law of the arbitration agreement will be the same as the proper law of the substantive contract of which it forms part, but exceptionally this may not be the case. Once a particular dispute has arisen, its reference by the parties to arbitration gives rise to a further contract separate from the agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration. This separate agreement has its own proper law.

2 See CONFLICT OF LAWS vol 8(3) (Reissue) PARA 62 et seq. It should be noted that the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome, 19 June 1980; Cmnd 8489) art 1(2)(d), incorporated into English law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, excludes from its scope arbitration agreements, so their proper law continues to be determined by common law principles: see CONFLICT OF LAWS vol 8(3) (Reissue)
PARA 349.

1208. Rules applicable to the substance of the dispute.

The arbitral tribunal must decide the dispute in accordance with the law chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute or, if the parties so agree, in accordance with such other considerations as are agreed by them or determined by the tribunal. For this purpose, the choice of the laws of a country must be understood to refer to the substantive laws of that country and not its conflict of laws rules. If or to the extent that there is no such choice or agreement, the tribunal must apply the law determined by the conflict of laws rules which it considers applicable.



Now I have highlighted what I consider to be Extremely important.. It says in Plain English "the law chosen by the Parties!".. So It is common sense to take from that statement that we are to be in agreement with the opposing party to the claim against us that we use an arbitrary service provided by the commercial court we have been invited to attend..

So (Please correct me if you guys think I am barking up the wrong tree here) When we enter a court room for an arbitrary hearing... Council tax, Parking or speeding offences any Offence that is quoted as against an ACT ect..ect and we ask if the magistrates are acting under their Oaths, I think we should rephrase the question to.."Under what Principle of arbitration are you declaring your authority in?"

Now we are never going to agree to be held under the commercial court of arbitration system, to do so would be less than good for our financial health.. So we revert and refer the court "For and on the record" to the following principles...
Halsbury's Laws of England/ARBITRATION (VOLUME 2 (2008) 5TH EDITION)/2. ARBITRATION UNDER PART 1 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996/(1) INTRODUCTION/1210. Principles of arbitration.

The provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 are founded on the following principles and must be construed accordingly:

(1) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(2) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest; and
(3) in matters governed by the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 the court should not intervene except as provided by those provisions.

The provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 must not be construed as excluding the operation of any rule of law consistent with those provisions, in particular, any rule of law as to:
(a) matters which are not capable of settlement by arbitration;
(b) the effect of an oral arbitration agreement; or
(c) the refusal of recognition or enforcement of an arbitrary award on grounds of public policy.
The Arbitration Act 1996 must not be construed as reviving any jurisdiction of the court to set aside or remit an award on the ground of errors of fact or law on the face of the award.


So Facing the above quote; That basically the Law over rules the principles of Arbitration, on the grounds that Law supersedes rules, that would make all Orders or fines imposed unlawful without the consent of both parties to the action, indeed I believe if this is quoted in an arbitrary case, the case would cease.

The problem too was when I was reading and trying to cross reference with other Law books I have, is that none of it makes sense to any party, other than the party bringing the case to arbitration. It actually states that if you agree to the arbitration, that any resulting obligation to any party comes with the proviso that any further disputes regarding the matter, will automatically be under the jurisdiction of the Arbitrary court, even if express consent is not given in any future time regarding that case.
1213. Meaning of 'arbitration agreement'.

For the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 19961, 'arbitration agreement' means an agreement to submit to arbitration present or future disputes, whether they are contractual or not.


So basically if you screw up and allow them jurisdiction at the first hurdle, they HAVE jurisdiction for the entire length of the case to its ultimate outcome. :thinks:

Here is a nice point to research further too..
7 Arbitration Act 1996 s 1(b).
It was said during the House of Lords debate on the second reading of the Arbitration Bill (which became the Arbitration Act 1996) that: 'The principle of party autonomy is central to the Bill. The parties who are in dispute are able to decide how the arbitration should be conducted. The flexibility and control which this freedom gives to the parties is of critical importance. Having said that, the freedom is not absolute. There are a small number of provisions which for reasons of public policy cannot be overridden. We thought it right when looking at the current law on arbitration to propose to the House certain changes. These are designed to improve the attractiveness of arbitration to potential users. What they want is a system which is speedy and cost-effective, is final and fair at the same time. We started from the principle that if parties have chosen arbitration rather than the courts to resolve their dispute, this decision must be respected. We propose therefore to curtail the ability of the court to intervene in the arbitrary process except where the assistance of the court is clearly necessary to move the arbitration forward or where there has been a manifest injustice. It is thus a deregulatory measure in that we are freeing up the process from unwarranted reference to the courts or unwarranted interference by them': 568 HL Official Report (5th series), 18 January 1996, col 761. As to the principle of party autonomy in the Arbitration Act 1996 Pt 1 see Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 727 (TCC), [2006] 4 All ER 79, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 81.

Halsbury's Laws of England/ARBITRATION (VOLUME 2 (2008) 5TH EDITION)/2. ARBITRATION UNDER PART 1 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996/(1) INTRODUCTION/1212. Seat of the arbitration.

1212. Seat of the arbitration.

For the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 19961, the 'seat of the arbitration' means the juridical seat of the arbitration designated by:

(1) the parties to the arbitration agreement; or
(2) any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in that re-gard; or
(3) the arbitral tribunal if so authorised by the parties,

or determined, in the absence of any such designation, having regard to the parties' agreement and all the relevant circumstances.


I have to research this paragraph some more to ensure my train of thought is correct here. When dealing with these Commercial courts or arbitration services they are offering we need to understand fully the "TYPE" of Law they wish to proceed in, be it Commercial , Admiralty, civil..ect..ect.
The seat of the arbitration is intended to refer to a particular state or territory which is associated with a recognisable and distinct system of law


We are able to rebut their issues if we remain in honour and subject ourselves to common law Jurisdiction, because we can ONLY be found guilty if we have caused a provable injury or loss to the person (Human being )or Entity bringing the case against us.
Once the seat of the arbitration is determined for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996 s it cannot be moved unless the parties so agree.

So we are taking away the controversy which the court or arbitration service could make a decision on. By Agreeing to be held under common law Jurisdiction there is no possibility of controversy.
8 Arbitration Act 1996 s 3. In determining what is the seat of the arbitration, the court should take into account the circumstances in existence at the time that the relevant arbitration begins: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v Paymentech Merchant Services Inc [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 514, [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 65. It has been said that the phrase 'all the relevant circumstances' means that a court has to have regard to any connections with one or more particular countries that can be identified in relation to (1) the parties; (2) the dispute which will be the subject of the arbitration; (3) the proposed procedures in the arbitration, including (if known) the place where hearings are to be held; and (4) the issue of the award or awards: Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v Paymentech Merchant Services Inc [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 514, [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 65. In the absence of some express and clear provision to the contrary, an agreement between the parties that the procedural or curial law of a particular country should apply to the arbitration is likely to have the result that that country is also the seat of the arbitration: see ABB Lummus Global Ltd v Keppel Fels Ltd (formerly Far East Levingston Shipbuilding Ltd) [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 24. As to the procedural or curial law see PARA 1207.

UPDATE

1212 Seat of the arbitration

NOTE 2--Where there is inconsistency in the agreement between the governing law and the place identified as the seat of arbitration, the former should generally prevail: Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Business Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 426 (TCC), [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 493.


The above quote explains nicely that the Law of the country where the tribunal or arbitration is to take place should always take precedent where the parties to the case cannot or will not agree to the jurisdiction or "seat" of arbitration.

I will leave it there for now and let you guys chew it over and see if you come to the same conclusions as me, or See something I have missed and want me to research further.

:shake: :hug:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby holy vehm » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:23 pm

Nice piece of research bro, i share your thoughts but have you read through the interpretations act?
This is a guide to how they want us to interprete their law (rules) and worth reading alongside any of their acts.

For those that play the legal ease game.

The Interpretation Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that governs the interpretation of terms within acts of Parliament.

The Interpretation Act 1978[1] came into force on 1 January 1979. The Act defines words and phrases contained in statutory documents and acts of parliament. The Act repealed the whole of the Interpretation Act 1889[2] (except for some paragraphs of section 13 in their application to Northern Ireland). The Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954[3] in the same way applies to Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Interpretation Act 1978 applies to itself and to any act passed after the commencement of the Act (section 22) and, to the extent specified in Part I of Schedule 2,[4] to acts passed before the commencement of this Act.

Unless it is clear there is a contrary intention, wherever in any act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument there are words importing the masculine gender, the words should be construed to incorporate the feminine and vice versa. Also, words in the singular include the plural, and as with the interchangeably of words importing gender so it is with the plural and singular.[5]

Where a person commits an act or omission that would be an offence under more than one act of parliament or under common law they should only be prosecuted and punished under one of the alternatives.[6]

The Scotland Act 1998 amends the Interpretation Act 1978 by inserting a new section 23A to prevent an offender being liable to be prosecuted and punished under both an Act of the UK Parliament and an Act of the Scottish Parliament.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_Act_1978

And the act itself: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30


viewtopic.php?f=76&t=7482&p=64789&hilit=interpretations+act#p64789
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby apsert » Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:45 pm

My attention were drawn to the line thats states - subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

HHmmm. Subject, ONLY. to protect their system will they protect their acquiesced subject and on no other uncertain grounds.

Makes sense, people are government slaves, if rules are in conflict that would otherwise give rise to their law. Then the subjects (lab rats) have brought to their attention of the potential re-crafting of their laws adjacent to rules. So in which we subject are to recieve remedy as of such ONLY to further protect
their game. Thus interpritation Act to exist.

MOVE THE BALL AROUND WHEN IT SUITS THEM!!! AFTER ALL THEY DID NOT INVENT THIS GAME FOR US TO WIN THIS IS THE CASINO, THE STATE THE HOUSE NEVER LOSES!!!

Personally i still go with where authority were first gained and the PTB Hate it!! QE II CORONATION OATH, she swore in Accordance to gods the gospil laws. (ten commandments thus common law) never to accept man made laws as stated upon the book she swears to defend. Causes a head rash...
Im full of legal lurgies when it comes down to authority, come get infected if you will. :giggle: :love:
apsert
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby knightron » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:05 pm

I totally agree that Common Law MUST take precedent in our Courts, my point is, that if we can prove In THEIR own language that a conflict exists, we can have the cases Lawfully moved into a court with a Jury..

Just asking a Magistrate or a Judge to sit on or Under their Oath of office has worked only on a few cases That I know about.. In Most cases the Magistrates or Judge recused themselves..(ran out or abandoned the court) and thus the case had to be re listed and it all started all over again..With them trying to steamroller the human being on future occasions.

Lets Prove to them in their own terms, that what they are doing is wrong and un-just and get it on Public record in court.. Yeah its massively harder to do, Yes they move the goal posts at every turn, but eventually they will have no alternative, when the playing field is so full of holes we have made, that there will be no place left for them to move the goal posts to.
subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

In That case we need to ask; who determines the Public interests, what methodology is sought and used to determine such, and how do they propose to enforce Public interest safeguards on members of the public who do not wish to contract in such a way?

:hug: :shake:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby Nemesis » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:42 am

Over the last few years i have read a vast amount of information about the courts.

I have also defended myself in court (magistrates) quite a few times.

It is obvious to me now that the mags courts are not there to listen to your side of the story. They really aren't anything to do with 'justice' - even in the loosest sense of the word.

The mags courts are just part of the estabishment machine to process the plebs through the system who have fallen foul of whatever statute; parking fine, public disorder, non-payment of council tax, ad infinitum.

Pay up peasant.

And if you don't, we will kick your door in and sieze your posessions.
DISCONNECT FROM THE CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT
User avatar
Nemesis
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:09 pm

Hi Knightron,

I hope you don't mind me weighing in but I just wanted to correct a couple of issues.

The Halsbury's quote you've mentioned doesn't apply to the entire legal system. It applies to arbitration (it's headlined Halsbury's Laws of England/ARBITRATION (VOLUME 2 (2008) 5TH EDITION)).

Arbitration is a system of alternative dispute resolution and isn't relevant at all during court proceedings. The reference to a choice of jurisdiction simply allows the parties to decide beforehand which jurisdiction (ie which country's system of arbitration) should resolve any disputes. For example, many contracts will state New York law as applicable because it has a good legal system. Again, this is solely for the purposes of arbitration, not normal court proceedings.

It's useful information if you are planning on entering into a business agreement but it has no bearing whatsoever on jurisdiction on civil and criminal cases and certainly doesn't permit you to challenge a court's jurisdiction to hear a case.

Let me know if you have any queries!

EDIT: And, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the whole point of being a freeman is that all statute law is unenforceable. If that is the case then when would the Arbitration Act 1996 have anything to do with anything? After all, it is statute.

Robin
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby knightron » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:39 pm

Hi Robin ..Thanks for joining the conversation..

My point is that when you go into a Magistrates court on a summery offence it is solely acting in an Arbitrary manner, No law has been broken and there is no Provable loss or harm to anyone, other wise you would be charged with Assault, Murder, Theft ect..ect...ect so A statute can only be allowed to be ruled up on if both parties to the action agree to let the Magistrates act as mediator.

Just because a Magistrate is sitting (even if they are there as Magistrates and under their Oath) they could not rule or give judgement in the case unless both parties agree to abide by their ruling. Anything less would be rules by shotgun i.e "you do as I say or else".

Anyone committing an act against a person or property or fraudulently taking money or belongings from someone should be Jailed no doubt, (or sent in to a room with me for 5 mins) ((Natural Justice)) These are all covered in Common Law. We don't need or need to consent to any thing other than common law..it covers everything..Anything Else is Prejudicial..Take speeding for instance..Who has been hurt? where is the loss?, there is not one jot of evidence to prove a loss in any case of speeding, yet Magistrates consider it to be a Criminal offence. It is prejudicial because it is assumed that if someone is speeding they are going to hurt someone, but can this be proved in every case?..No..so it can not be Fair to assume that someone is Guilty of a criminal offence because they don't adhere to a limitation put upon their right to travel.

:shake: :hug:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby robinr22 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:33 pm

And thanks for replying.

The problem really is this. Leaving aside the argument as to wether you are actually legally bound by a court. When you refuse to turn up and get arrested by the police then you are bound by the court whether you like it or not. What difference does it make if you agree or not?

And this has nothing to do with abitration, which is not the same as acting arbitrarily. i) Arbitration. ii) Arbitary. They are two totally different things.

EDIT: And why do you think you have to prove loss for speeding? It's an offence to travel over the speed limit. Loss doesn't come into it. You may think that it should, but it doesn't.
robinr22
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:03 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby knightron » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:41 pm

EDIT: And why do you think you have to prove loss for speeding? It's an offence to travel over the speed limit. Loss doesn't come into it. You may think that it should, but it doesn't.
Ok so Name the "Law" that stops me from speeding? apart from common sense and a sense of not wanting to hurt anyone should I end up with a blow-out or something like that.
Leaving aside the argument as to wether you are actually legally bound by a court.

Uh?... how can we leave that argument aside?..if A police officer comes and locks me up for not turning up at a tribunal I will sue him for a tort of harassment and wrongful imprisonment. If I am not legally bound by a court without my consent, what are the chances of me giving consent to anyone to lock me up, on the orders of someone whom I haven't given authority to do so?...

If I do not agree I have the right to disagree, that is the point, and unless anyone can show me the "LAW" that states I have to agree..If they act upon me unlawfully I have the prerogative to sue them in a civil action and pursue them in a commercial manner. If they want to enter that arena we will do it on equal terms, not theirs.

OK...... let me ask you this..if I was to send some police Officers to your House and have you arrested for something that you know you didn't do and had them take you and lock you up for 24-36 hours while they made up something to say you have done, like driving on a road without lights at 6 pm, and then they decide what they wanted to do with you, Then dragged you in front of me and told you that you must now pay me the sum of £1500 for the privilege of what you have been through. Would you pay me? or would you stand and argue that you have done nothing wrong and ask who the hell I think I am having you treated in that manner.! So when you have finished asking me questions, and strictly because you have asked me that question "who am I and where is my authority" I say well If you don't pay I will have these men throw you in to a 7 foot by 7 foot room for 3 months..what would you say?..
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Ok Here is one for ya..!

Postby knightron » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:34 pm

any one? bumpity bump bump bump..!
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Next

Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron