Court de Jure

[huntingross]

From a personal point of view, moving this along would be great for this reason....so I can nail these effers....it would be an excellent way to demonstrate that it works....

If I take my paperwork so far, it would merely be evidence in 'their' legal system, but I have to lodge 'their' paper work, make sure it is fire proof in 'their' system, make sure I'm lodging it in the correct jurisdiction.....(i didn't know there was a wrong one)...

I was asked about where it was....the clerk pondered and wondered if it would be Edinburgh, or possibly Midlothian....might not have to be Ireland...WTF....how difficult can it be....why should it matter where the effing papers are lodged....and why should i be inconvenienced to lodge them soemwhere where i don't frequent or possibly even live.

[ArturoDekko]

Have responded to your thread huntingross.

A Court of Common Law would have jurisdiction over all flesh and blood, whether they belong to a fictional society or not. Their fictionality is of no concern to us. If they injure us by their actions, we are due remedy.

Common law pre-empts any subsequent fictions built upon it. Common Law is the ONLY law that can be used to resolve disputes between societies.

AD

[huntingross]

That's the only way it makes sense to me AD.

The Court of Common Law (TCCL) needs to be able to issue verdicts (if that is what we want to call them) for lower courts and 'persons' to obey....we can not afford to be a 'paper tiger'.

[1965freeman]

Why not start by looking at the Sharia courts now operating within the UK. Interesting article on TODAY BBC radio 4 this morning about their validity, and the fact that more and more non-muslims are using it as a way to cheaper, quicker judgements. They had a 'normal lawyer' trying to argue that the Sharia courts decisions were not binding or valid under English Law, but got his ass kicked by the Sharia spokesman who told him otherwise....
extract from a BBC news article about the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm

Note the phrases: "These "courts" are legally recognised in English law as a means for warring parties to agree to arbitration. The law sees this as a practical way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way, without clogging up the local courts."
AND
"Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith." - why not take your mortgage lender to Sharia Court! lmao

Sooooo, not a bad place to start as a 'model' surely. Cut out all the religious 'crap' and simply see how they operate, and gained recognition as producing fully 'legally' (bleuch!) binding judgements. If they can do it, presuameably on the grounds of a 'religious' or 'matter of conscience' belief system.... then why the hell can't we?

[huntingross]

OK....lets do it....I'm in....lets start judging....I feel the need to judge....to cast the first stone (doh, there's religion again)

We need numbers, a quorum

[ArturoDekko]

1965freeman - Thanks for the input. Could it be that sharia law is respected because it is a fully established religion? Do we have that recognition yet? How do we get that?

Huntingross - I do know how you feel. We need more people before we even have a jury. I put this in the polls section but it may get more traffic elsewhere. As I said before, if everyone posts a link to this page on their other forums, and jot a note here so there is no repetition, we may be able to get enough interest.

Is there the facility for a proper poll? I do not see the mechanism on this site.

AD

[huntingross]

I don't know the answer to this question "Is there the facility for a proper poll? I do not see the mechanism on this site.".....but I'll PM V and see what she says.

[Highspirit]

Well you can count me in too :-)

[ArturoDekko]

Welcome highspirit. When we have enough bodies, we can start looking at every ones location to see how feasable it would be to get together for a damn good judging

huntingross - thank you for that, as you can see by my post count, I am fairly new to this forum and do not yet know who the moderators are and I was reluctant to bother Veronica on the grounds that she would be very busy.

Second thoughts on the sharia law type approach. I would imagine that a properly formed society or religion (worshipping freedom?) with a clearly defined constitution or belief system would be necessary. At the moment, the World Freeman Society is being formed, but, besides having no money, I am not comfortable having to pay cash to an organisation that professes to be outside of the statutory system and hence outside their money system. I was working on my own society before Rob formed his and I thought, "He has just saved me a lot of work". Now I am revisiting the idea of The One True Fact Society. The only requirement to join the society is to agree with the one principal that there is only one true eternal and omnipresent fact that something exists. It follows on from this that every one has a different perspective of the same thing and that if we are to validate our own view, we must respect the views of others, even if they are different to our own, subject to the limitation that no injury is caused. Add to that the belief in the betterment of the individual to higher states of realisation with a view to the betterment of humanity as a whole, reducing injury, and we also have a religion. The "god" of that religion would be The One That Is All.

Anyway ... it seems logical now that we would need a clearly defined society, fulfilling all the "requirements" of a society, before we can form a court of that society. What do you think?

AD :saint:

[huntingross]

Interesting....I hadn't really thought of it being societal.

I had thought of it as an independant court administering Common Law, accessible to all that required remedy under that jurisdiction regardless of your belief system