It’s Monday and though there’s a project I am on which hoovers up the time, it’s probably also time to look at Captain Ranty’s main arguments and he begins through a pundit called The Spaniard, whose premises are:
# There are 68 different definitions of the word “person”. Any one of them can apply if, say, a Bill is introduced to Parliament. Yet in the judicial dictionary he had gone through, it did not apply to a man or a woman – it was never specified.
Legerdemain, say us. Maybe so but in the law, definitions are everything – that and precedent. And people have been got off or convicted before on such technicalities.
# It will most likely not contain the word “person”, as in the person the Bill applies to, so one must go back to the last Act pertaining to the subject matter in question, then to one before that and so on until you find an Act which contains the word “person” or “persons” and defines it.
# Artificial entities, corporate souls, legal fictions. It includes these things.
# The inclusion of one is also to the exclusion of all others.
What I’d like from Ranty in his navbar is one link leading to a page of links laying out the case in detail, far more detail than a short vid by The Spaniard.
I’d like to see laid out that if we can dispute the meaning of “person”:
- can we do that because it is ill-defined in Parliament or is there some all-inclusive word tucked away somewhere in an Act which would blow away our resort to the definition we place on the word “person”?
- in practical terms, when they come to my door to recover moneys, how far will my definition go?
Though I appreciate Ranty’s angle and am interested enough to explore it and see if it’s poss, I’d like to see precedent that it is poss, i.e. cases where it worked. I’m sure the good Ranty has them onsite but it’s a bloody big site and I can’t go looking for them as I have [cough] er … my other project I’m on, which is a different tack to escape illegal clutches, masquerading as legal.
The Cap’n is of a similar mentality to me in that we’re willing to try something on if there is a sniff, a whiff of success in the air. That is – if it is very much above board and has survived challenges, then why not? It’s worth exploring.
But the good Cap’n must also realize few of us:
- are lawyers and know how the law, under EU influence operates and how disputing this definition could succeed;
- have the time to expend on this. The Spaniard has spent five years studying it, Jailhouse Lawyer did similar for prisoners;
- have the “unencumberedness”, free of family and/or commitments and Them are banking on that;
- have the legal expertise or way of thinking – we can’t think on our feet;
- have the bottle to see it through, plus the money in legal fees.
Now I am not rejecting this. I’m not rejecting something I know not of. I need to see precedent, advice on the way to go on this Act or that – to start with. I don’t need my hand held throughout, as that is legal aid and must be paid for but initial precedent and advice would help.
In my case, I hope I could say it is not lack of bottle but that I’m a very careful, watchful person by nature, having learnt in the school of hard knocks in the past three decades. I’m ultra-suspicious of anyone appearing with a panacea but by the same token, I neither reject nor accept.
If I see a chance of something, then I’ll go for it. Were you to look at the unusual lateral solutions to design problems I’ve just incorporated in my project, you’d see a prime person for trying this Freeman thing out. But solid grounds are what are needed. I don’t mean cut and dried, put in a box and handed to me, as one must get off one’s butt and break cover.
But one must have scanned the landscape and got the sniper points basically covered first. In other words, what do lawyers say? I don’t mean lawyers making their money from the status quo and on govt definitions but from defence lawyers who’ve had some success. If we’re putting our safety on the line, fine – I’ll do that and have done it before.
Yet there must be some chance of success, even a smidgeon, rather than a wing and a prayer. If the good Cap’n reads this, I am certainly not rejecting but I am asking him to lay the links out behind a one link in his navbar for people to explore and digest.