Law is like life. It begins small and simple and then evolves. The Darwinian struggles to occupy new existential spaces and overcome challenges create new species. Much like ecosystems, young jurisdictions enjoy relatively simple relationships between their constituent parts but more established legal systems are populated with so many sets of rules, that experts in one area scarcely need know the others. Whether these evolutionary facts are morally good or bad is a philosophical issue. Advanced capitalist countries are routinely perceived as being governed by the practitioners of this ancient craft. Their specialist knowledge is the preserve of the few willing and financially able to obtain the learning required. Specialists are a feature of all complex societies.
Tackling the entrenched inequality in our society is a task requiring all hands on deck. Distinguishing between methods which help and those which hinder us is a key skill in this struggle.
Enter the Legal Woo Brigade. They’d prefer to be known as “Freemen on the land” performing “lawful rebellion”, but their creed is a counterproductive mix of denying both most law and the veracity of all lawyers. They erroneously claim that law does not evolve, that England is still subject to an ancient contract called the Magna Carta. Having blinded themselves to the basic democratic principles which have overcome medieval values, the Woo Brigade insist that no modern law has equal force to the Magna Carta. This is an obvious nonsense. The medieval world was very different from ours, and most the of the Magna Carta is meaningless today. Conveniently, they overlook the evils of that bygone age: the lack of rights for women, serfdom, politics being controlled by religious supremacists to name but three. They proselytise for an imaginary version of the law in the same manner as a fundamentalist preacher promises an unobtainable heaven, by misinterpreting their preferred texts, refusing fair debates and misreporting their numerous failures. Woo forums avoid these awkward truths, preferring fiction to facing down a critical analysis of their belief system.
A common refrain in their comments on critical blogs is “[the woo] makes sense to me!” They prefer to hear what they like rather than accept anyone else may possibly know better. Their attempts to muster recruits in Occupy London met with sustained deconstructions of their bizarre and pseudo-religious beliefs. Although this intellectual conflict was inevitable, they reacted badly to it, resorting to personal attacks on people in Occupy’s legal team and attempts to undermine our efforts to mount a viable legal defence. Whilst I was personally unconcerned about puerile descriptions of me as a “corporate shill”, their campaign to dissuade people from signing witness statements was altogether more serious. Without statements we’d have had no evidence. Without evidence to rebut the City’s eviction case, OccupyLSX wouldn’t even have been granted a trial in the High Court – we’d have been evicted much more swiftly. Whilst OccupyLSX’s indecision on its own longevity didn’t help develop the common law on protest camps, it bought considerable time by taking the actual rules of civil litigation seriously. Curiously, the one woo man who penetrated into the appeal process was rubbished by the Court of Appeal, which described his case as “simply wrong”.
Bizarrely – and in much contrast to Occupy – the Woo Brigade make no case for law reform. Accepting that law has developed does not equate with political submission to the impact of the laws which value proprietary rights over communities. Failing to propose changes reveals the regressive nature of the woo. If only it ended there! Much of the woo preys on vulnerable people. A particular worry is their promise of a cure for chronic debts by giving misconceived legal advice. Faced with increasing exposure, these charlatans have fought back with personal slurs on Occupy’s most committed activists, whilst contributing nothing to the movement. Ignoring this antisocial behaviour has been a costly mistake. Welcoming everyone to Occupy was an early tactical triumph but also a hostage to fortune. The time has come to expose these reactionaries.
By Scrapper Duncan
blog.scrapperduncan.com
As the appellant that Mr Roy mentions I did not penetrate the appeal process, i made an application and was accepted under due process, and your description of me as a part of the woo brigade/woo merchant is libellous Mr Duncan “Scapper” Roy. You make the same errors in assumptions as the Master of the Rolls did that I am in the class of people known as the Freeman on the Land, I am not and have never been.
Many Freeman on the Land decry statutes as not valid, I don’t! But then I am not a “Freeman on the Land”. I don’t deny any law!
Mr Roy’s comments are bizzare as my entire intent was law reform, but then the appeal would have to have been heard for that to be even possible.
Quite seriously the Master of the Rolls quite outrageously said I said that the Statutes don’t apply to me I never said any such thing, he makes the same assumption as you. There were 50 people in court at least for the leave to appeal hearing and they quite clearly heard me get confirmation on one statute being extant in legislation and that I wished to rely on all of it it as just a part of my appeal. Contained within the appeal were STATUTES and Case Law as well as academic argument and evidence. None of them heard me say statutes don’t apply to me and the Master of the Rolls entirely misrepresents in that regard.
there were 6 points of appeal in my appeal he only deal with 2 and fudged both of those, he needs remedial English lessons in regard the two he did not really deal with.
Maybe some of the other points as he said in no 2 he really did not understand. Even though there was evidence on the illegitimacy of the Lord Mayor The other points of appeal might have hit home?
One dealt with issues of law to do with the privatisation of public space he ignored it completely as he did with the equity and trust issues a question that has not been dealt with in law yet
It seems Mr Roy has projected the things that bug him onto me, for someone involved in a campaign for justice he shows little regard for or understanding of it. But then he would have to be a person that checks facts rather than assuming things based upon false beliefs.
But then he believes that law evolves like some sort of creature, maybe it does and has but it is certainly a deformed evolution as are many of its practitioners when set against what are decent standards of humanity. Say in the evidences of crimes I presented!
The Master ignored the evidences of crimes by UBS and RBS and so much more. Crimes that are dealt with by STAUTES!
I find his statement regarding “the veracity of all lawyers” curious is he saying all lawyers tell the truth, i thought and many others would agree that a lot are just paid liars
ve·rac·i·ty/v??ras?t?/
Noun:
Conformity to facts; accuracy: “the veracity of the story”.
Habitual truthfulness: “his veracity and character”
In any case as a lawyer Mr Roy fails, he has not checked his facts, maybe he believes what he says but that does not mean he is correct. but then he was not in court for either case!
OWN GOAL MR ROY!
Further
Blackstone pointed out that English law was superior to that of other nations because liberty under the law was the purpose of the constitution:
“A right of every Englishman is that of applying to the Courts of Justice for redress of injuries. Since the law in England is the supreme arbiter of every man’s life, liberty and property, Courts of Justice must at all times be open to the subject, and the law be duly administered therein.”
Interestingly, the Master himself 1st brought up the Magna Carta asking the City of London if it was still included in it. They replied yes.
Erroneously Mr Roy states this as an ancient contract called the Magna Carta, whereas the Master was referring to current legislation. It is both!!!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents.
Curiously the Master Says in his Judgement Magna Carta Heir being unknown to law, and yet Heir is mentioned four times in the legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/I
FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
I am reminded of Lord Nelson allegedly putting the telescope to his eye patch and saying “I see no ships!”.
What it means might be the point of that part of the application, but it is certainly impossible to say it is unknown to law and as Mr Roy will know the City of London is run by Freeman.
There is case law that refers to the Magna Carta
A few years ago regrading the condition, status and validity of Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights, there is the case of R v. Witham, 1997. This addressed the “doctrine of implied repeal”, and Mr. Justice Laws demolished it:
“Access to the courts is a constitutional right: it can only be denied by the Government if it persuades parliament to pass legislation which specifically – in effect by express permission -permits the executive to turn people away from the court door.”
He explained the basis of his conclusion thus:
“What is the precise nature of any constitutional right such as might be… the power of
government…to abrogate? In the unwritten order of the British state, at a time when the common law continues to accord a legislative supremacy to parliament, the notion of a constitutional right can…not be abrogated by the state save by specific provision in Act of Parliament, or by regulations …specifically confers the power to abrogate. General words will not suffice. And any such rights will be the creatures of the common law, since their existence would not be the consequence of the democratic process but would be logically prior to it.”
Magna Carta is a fact of current law.
“In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right of both making and of enforcing laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and whenever these powers are united together, there can be no public liberty…. But where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands, the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence and therewith of the liberty of the subject. With us therefore, in England, this supreme power is divided into two branches; the legislative, to wit, the Parliament, consisting of the King, the Lords and the Commons; and the other, the executive consisting of the King alone”.
Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England.
We have a current thread in this country, The Judiciary (of course), Parliament and the Banks are controlled, let me see? by Lawyers?
What was it was said in one of Shakespeare’s plays Henry the Sixth??
Cade alleges that all lawyers do is shuffle parchments back and forth in a systematic attempt to ruin the common people so Dick says.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Certainly I know of a few that need locking up! And others being taught how to be responsible human beings.
I notice that people are managing to have a few of the corrupt judiciary removed in Los Angeles.
Clean your own house 1st Mr Roy deal with the lawyers!