Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonse nse” - ruling by Canadian judge

Expand Messages
  • Brendan Boal
    We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally part of the system of privilage and oppression. Of course there are lots of perfectly reasonable laws as well, and it is putting ridiculous words into my mouth to suggest I would throw them all away.  However, the obvious reasonableness of the many everyday, mundane rules that come under the aucpicies of the legal system should not blind us to the key fact that the primary, undeclared function of that system is political. If you doubt this, compare the socoio/economic status of the average prison inmate, to that of the financiers who have been rewarded for the biggest theft in history. Just because I point this out dosen't mean that I want old ladies to be mugged or Magna Carta to be torn up. Don't be silly!

      I have always acknowledged that the 'free men' are nuts. This whole discussion started because of me warning that they might turn up at the recent public meeting organised by Mark. But nuts is not the same as wicked.  Problematic as they are, the free men are less of a problem than the judges and all that they represent. The free men are simply a politically and legally inarticulate response to the system of oppression, a sort of ostritch reaction, I.e., 'if we pretend it's not there it'll go away'. As such they are a form of resistance, allbiet a distracting and ineffective one. But just because they are annoying, I do not want to celebrate the words of the oppressor against them.

      I know one of these :free men' and I could shake him when I hear some of the daftness he comes out with, but he is not actually a bad sort, rather, he's just bought into a bad theory. I think he and others (often of limited grasp) do so because like religion, it appears to offer a simple and empowering solution to an overwhelming problem. What we need to do with these people is disabuse them of their error, not spit hate at them, because they are, at the bottom, fellow travellers.

      Brendan.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...>
      To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc:
      Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 23:48
      Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

      I wasn't going to comment on this, but Mark asked me what I thought. I'm with him and Mike on it.

      I came across the 'Freeman on the Land' movement a few years ago, after someone posted a link on the diggers350 list mentioning 'lawful rebellion'. Since it was a term I'd used in my own thinking I had a look at the website and (once I'd got over the initial shock) I decided there was some real hunger for reform there so I started posting on their forum. It was a useful experience (and helped me clarify my own ideas), but for the most part the only people who were willing to listen to reason were the ones who quickly turned their back on it when they realised how absurd it was. I posted there for about three months before I finally gave up on them; I eventually came to the conclusion that they're wilfully blind. They're no more resisting the system than someone banging their head againsta castle wall.

      Which is how I sometimes feel about TLIO - especially when I read something like Brendan's comment that 'judges are unequivocally part of the system of privelige and oppression'. Brendan might want us to throw away everything that's been built over the centuries, but most people would rather have imperfect laws than none at all. Where there isn't any law there certainly isn't any justice, and without judges and police there isn't any law. If we want our criticisms of the current system to be taken seriously, we have to recognise that much of it is worthwhile, and we have to recognise that the people who serve it do deserve some respect. It does no good to blame people for the faults of the machine.

      As far as I can see mainstream society is full of people who are uneasy about many aspects of how the world works, but can't see what could be done to put it right. Very often they don't look too hard because they fear that they themselves would lose if it was put right, but most of them wouldn't try and defend something that's clearly indefensible. If we really want to bring about reform we need to get people like that on our side, not simply dismiss them as lackeys of some establishment conspiracy. The courts don't hand down unjust rulings because the judges are wicked, but because they're bound by unjust laws, and they can only go against those laws if someone demonstrates that they're incompatible with other parts of the law - so far, on the land issue, nobody has.

      Brendan would no doubt describe me as a legal nerd, but I'd say my ideas are far more radical than his. Over the last couple of years I've posted various arguments, here and elsewhere, which might force the courts to confront some of the fundamental flaws in the law which deprive people of their right to land - but nobody's shown any interest in taking them forward. I can't get the issue to court myself because I already have as much land as I have any natural right to, so I'm not in a position to provoke a legal dispute. But someone who doesn't have land, if they chose the right place to stake a claim to and were willing to go through the necessary legal (and semi-legal) hoops, could bring the question of land rights back to the centre of the legal and political stage.

      But if nobody's interested .... well, I wish you all luck.






      >________________________________
      > From: Mike Hannis <mikehannis@...>
      >To: TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Sunday, 2 December 2012, 16:34
      >Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge
      >
      >

      >I found the article very interesting - thank you Mark for posting it.
      >
      >I'm not enough of a legal nerd to have read the entire judgement,
            but I have downloaded it and it may well come in handy, since as
            it happens I am doing some research on this 'movement' at the
            moment.
      >
      >Hopefully without inviting a long discussion, people may be
            interested to know that it is based on exploitative mumbo-jumbo
            put about by a group of charismatic right-wing libertarian North
            Americans, in an attempt to profit from the desire of gullible
            people  to get out of paying debts and taxes.
      >
      >I am enough of a legal nerd to be in the business of occasionally
            assisting with low impact planning cases, and I've been concerned
            of late to witness enthusiasts promoting the idea that this
            confused ideology should be applied to planning issues.
      >
      >If there's anyone reading this who really thinks you can get
            around planning policy by refusing consent to maritime law,
            claiming allodial title, or creating an eleemosynary trust, then
            please refrain from advising anyone to follow your example until
            you have actually succeeded. I suspect it will be a long wait.
      >
      >Some people seem to have very strong views about what "we"
            "should" be discussing on this list. I for one would much rather
            read interesting posts like Mark's than any more sniping and
            infighting.
      >
      >Cheers
      >Mike
      >
      >
      >
      >On 01/12/2012 11:51, Brendan Boal wrote:
      >

      >>Whereas I fully acknowledge the shortcomings of the 'free man' movement, they are, never the less, trying in their own slightly deluded way to resist the system. As such, they are merely one of a number of well intentioned radical movements who think that 'this' or 'that' big idea is the answer to everything. By contrast, judges are unequivocally part of the system of privelige and oppression. Given that we are political radicals and not legal nerds, effusively promoting a judge's systematic dismemberment of the 'free men' is not something we should be doing on this list.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>________________________________
      >> From: "mark@..." <mark@...>
      >>To: TheLandisOurs@yahoogroups.com
      >>Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012, 21:49
      >>Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge
      >>
      >>
      >>Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling
                        “pseudolegal nonsense”:
      >>Canadian judge fights back
      >>
      >>September 30, 2012 by Adam Wagner
      >>Ref:
      >>http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          TheLandIsOurs-digest@yahoogroups.com
          TheLandIsOurs-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          TheLandIsOurs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    • Malcolm Ramsay
      Brendan wrote We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Brendan wrote "We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally part of the system of privilage and oppression. [....] the primary, undeclared function of [the legal] system is political. If you doubt this, compare the socoio/economic status of the average prison inmate, to that of the financiers who have been rewarded for the biggest theft in history. [....] Problematic as they are, the free men are less of a problem than the judges and all that they represent."

        This kind of simplistic analysis might be useful if you're trying to fire people up for a protest, but if you're trying to bring about meaningful change it's worse than useless. Who do you think is going to take you seriously if you spout stuff like this? All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't have much understanding of how the system operates, and anyone who hears it is likely to disregard any suggestions for reform that you put forward, and any group you represent. If I thought your attitude was representative of TLIO I wouldn't waste another minute on it.

        But do you in fact even have any realistic suggestions for reform?
        I might have missed them, but I certainly don't recall seeing you post any which would have any chance of gaining widespread acceptance  - perhaps, if you do have some, you could post them again.

        We do indeed live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. But we also live in one of the least oppressive societies that has ever existed - largely because the activities of government are constrained by the courts. And the particular features of the system which cause the injustice and inequality you're indignant about weren't created by anyone alive today, they were there almost from the start. You presumably think the courts should have done something to change them, but that's not what they're there for. Their role is simply to say whether or not some particular action falls inside or outside the law, and the fact that they largely confine themselves to that role is one of the things that makes it difficult for the government to simply disregard them and do as it pleases. (Which is something the judges do worry about - members of the supreme court have openly speculated about a conflict between the courts and an 'overmighty' government precipitating a constitutional crisis.)

        The courts can only change laws when they are proved to be flawed in the context of a particular dispute. It's no good simply arguing that the consequences of a law aren't fair, you have to show that some specific feature of it is incompatible with some other feature of it - then they have some (limited) power to change it. Until that happens all they can do is make their judgements according to the law as it stands. If we want the law to change it's up to us to find the flaws in it. It's not their job, and blaming them for injustice is pointless and unreasonable.

        As for the 'free men', I agree that 'what we need to do with these people is disabuse them of their error'. Given that their central claim is that they can put themselves outside the jurisdiction of the court, one of the best ways of disabusing them is to point out how judges deal with their arguments. That's effectively what Mark did.

        And for the record Brendan, I no more thought you really wanted to throw away all laws than you thought Dave Bangs wanted to turf you and Mark out of your homes when you made that throwaway comment last year. To paraphrase what you said then, I was being very slightly flippant to make a point; without judges there is no law.



        From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
        To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2012, 16:10
        Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

         
        We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally part of the system of privilage and oppression. Of course there are lots of perfectly reasonable laws as well, and it is putting ridiculous words into my mouth to suggest I would throw them all away.  However, the obvious reasonableness of the many everyday, mundane rules that come under the aucpicies of the legal system should not blind us to the key fact that the primary, undeclared function of that system is political. If you doubt this, compare the socoio/economic status of the average prison inmate, to that of the financiers who have been rewarded for the biggest theft in history. Just because I point this out dosen't mean that I want old ladies to be mugged or Magna Carta to be torn up. Don't be silly!

        I have always acknowledged that the 'free men' are nuts. This whole discussion started because of me warning that they might turn up at the recent public meeting organised by Mark. But nuts is not the same as wicked.  Problematic as they are, the free men are less of a problem than the judges and all that they represent. The free men are simply a politically and legally inarticulate response to the system of oppression, a sort of ostritch reaction, I.e., 'if we pretend it's not there it'll go away'. As such they are a form of resistance, allbiet a distracting and ineffective one. But just because they are annoying, I do not want to celebrate the words of the oppressor against them.

        I know one of these :free men' and I could shake him when I hear some of the daftness he comes out with, but he is not actually a bad sort, rather, he's just bought into a bad theory. I think he and others (often of limited grasp) do so because like religion, it appears to offer a simple and empowering solution to an overwhelming problem. What we need to do with these people is disabuse them of their error, not spit hate at them, because they are, at the bottom, fellow travellers.

        Brendan.



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...>
        To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc:
        Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 23:48
        Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

        I wasn't going to comment on this, but Mark asked me what I thought. I'm with him and Mike on it.

        I came across the 'Freeman on the Land' movement a few years ago, after someone posted a link on the diggers350 list mentioning 'lawful rebellion'. Since it was a term I'd used in my own thinking I had a look at the website and (once I'd got over the initial shock) I decided there was some real hunger for reform there so I started posting on their forum. It was a useful experience (and helped me clarify my own ideas), but for the most part the only people who were willing to listen to reason were the ones who quickly turned their back on it when they realised how absurd it was. I posted there for about three months before I finally gave up on them; I eventually came to the conclusion that they're wilfully blind. They're no more resisting the system than someone banging their head againsta castle wall.

        Which is how I sometimes feel about TLIO - especially when I read something like Brendan's comment that 'judges are unequivocally part of the system of privelige and oppression'. Brendan might want us to throw away everything that's been built over the centuries, but most people would rather have imperfect laws than none at all. Where there isn't any law there certainly isn't any justice, and without judges and police there isn't any law. If we want our criticisms of the current system to be taken seriously, we have to recognise that much of it is worthwhile, and we have to recognise that the people who serve it do deserve some respect. It does no good to blame people for the faults of the machine.

        As far as I can see mainstream society is full of people who are uneasy about many aspects of how the world works, but can't see what could be done to put it right. Very often they don't look too hard because they fear that they themselves would lose if it was put right, but most of them wouldn't try and defend something that's clearly indefensible. If we really want to bring about reform we need to get people like that on our side, not simply dismiss them as lackeys of some establishment conspiracy. The courts don't hand down unjust rulings because the judges are wicked, but because they're bound by unjust laws, and they can only go against those laws if someone demonstrates that they're incompatible with other parts of the law - so far, on the land issue, nobody has.

        Brendan would no doubt describe me as a legal nerd, but I'd say my ideas are far more radical than his. Over the last couple of years I've posted various arguments, here and elsewhere, which might force the courts to confront some of the fundamental flaws in the law which deprive people of their right to land - but nobody's shown any interest in taking them forward. I can't get the issue to court myself because I already have as much land as I have any natural right to, so I'm not in a position to provoke a legal dispute. But someone who doesn't have land, if they chose the right place to stake a claim to and were willing to go through the necessary legal (and semi-legal) hoops, could bring the question of land rights back to the centre of the legal and political stage.

        But if nobody's interested .... well, I wish you all luck.


      • Brendan Boal
        I have already explained to you that I have no difficulty with the principals of law and order, so your repeated explanations/justifications of them are
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 9, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I have already explained to you that I have no difficulty with the principals of law and order, so your repeated explanations/justifications of them are irrelevant, and miss the point anyway. The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it. Senior judges consist of 80%  public school boys. Law makers (government and senior civil servants) are the same ilk, as are pretty well all branches of established power in this country. Despite the ostensive separation of law and government which you trumpet, this highly unrepresentative elite manage to keep their hands on both levers of power. 
          The next thing you need to understand about the corruption of law and government in Britain is that they have been at it for centuries and for that reason, it is most subtle and deeply embeded in the world. They would do nothing so crude as to conspire to break their own laws, they don't have to! The network of school, family and wealth based patronage that has developed over a millennium, and which carefully steers the same people into power, generation upon generation (and equally carefully excludes the rest of us) is of itself, profoundly and intrinsically corrupt. Royalty, the Privy Council, the Inns of Court, the Bar Council, The House of Lords, The Church of England, the landowning/stealing aristocracy, the city, etc; the whole system is rotten with chummy, comfortable corruption. Anyone who lives in Britain and can't see this must be naive beyond words.  




          From: Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...>
          To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2012, 0:37
          Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge



          Brendan wrote "We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally part of the system of privilage and oppression. [....] the primary, undeclared function of [the legal] system is political. If you doubt this, compare the socoio/economic status of the average prison inmate, to that of the financiers who have been rewarded for the biggest theft in history. [....] Problematic as they are, the free men are less of a problem than the judges and all that they represent."

          This kind of simplistic analysis might be useful if you're trying to fire people up for a protest, but if you're trying to bring about meaningful change it's worse than useless. Who do you think is going to take you seriously if you spout stuff like this? All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't have much understanding of how the system operates, and anyone who hears it is likely to disregard any suggestions for reform that you put forward, and any group you represent. If I thought your attitude was representative of TLIO I wouldn't waste another minute on it.

          But do you in fact even have any realistic suggestions for reform?
          I might have missed them, but I certainly don't recall seeing you post any which would have any chance of gaining widespread acceptance  - perhaps, if you do have some, you could post them again.

          We do indeed live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. But we also live in one of the least oppressive societies that has ever existed - largely because the activities of government are constrained by the courts. And the particular features of the system which cause the injustice and inequality you're indignant about weren't created by anyone alive today, they were there almost from the start. You presumably think the courts should have done something to change them, but that's not what they're there for. Their role is simply to say whether or not some particular action falls inside or outside the law, and the fact that they largely confine themselves to that role is one of the things that makes it difficult for the government to simply disregard them and do as it pleases. (Which is something the judges do worry about - members of the supreme court have openly speculated about a conflict between the courts and an 'overmighty' government precipitating a constitutional crisis.)

          The courts can only change laws when they are proved to be flawed in the context of a particular dispute. It's no good simply arguing that the consequences of a law aren't fair, you have to show that some specific feature of it is incompatible with some other feature of it - then they have some (limited) power to change it. Until that happens all they can do is make their judgements according to the law as it stands. If we want the law to change it's up to us to find the flaws in it. It's not their job, and blaming them for injustice is pointless and unreasonable.

          As for the 'free men', I agree that 'what we need to do with these people is disabuse them of their error'. Given that their central claim is that they can put themselves outside the jurisdiction of the court, one of the best ways of disabusing them is to point out how judges deal with their arguments. That's effectively what Mark did.

          And for the record Brendan, I no more thought you really wanted to throw away all laws than you thought Dave Bangs wanted to turf you and Mark out of your homes when you made that throwaway comment last year. To paraphrase what you said then, I was being very slightly flippant to make a point; without judges there is no law.



          From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
          To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2012, 16:10
          Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

           
          We live in a grotesquely unfair and unequal society. The courts are central to preserving that status quo. Judges run the courts, ergo, they are unequoivocally part of the system of privilage and oppression. Of course there are lots of perfectly reasonable laws as well, and it is putting ridiculous words into my mouth to suggest I would throw them all away.  However, the obvious reasonableness of the many everyday, mundane rules that come under the aucpicies of the legal system should not blind us to the key fact that the primary, undeclared function of that system is political. If you doubt this, compare the socoio/economic status of the average prison inmate, to that of the financiers who have been rewarded for the biggest theft in history. Just because I point this out dosen't mean that I want old ladies to be mugged or Magna Carta to be torn up. Don't be silly!

          I have always acknowledged that the 'free men' are nuts. This whole discussion started because of me warning that they might turn up at the recent public meeting organised by Mark. But nuts is not the same as wicked.  Problematic as they are, the free men are less of a problem than the judges and all that they represent. The free men are simply a politically and legally inarticulate response to the system of oppression, a sort of ostritch reaction, I.e., 'if we pretend it's not there it'll go away'. As such they are a form of resistance, allbiet a distracting and ineffective one. But just because they are annoying, I do not want to celebrate the words of the oppressor against them.

          I know one of these :free men' and I could shake him when I hear some of the daftness he comes out with, but he is not actually a bad sort, rather, he's just bought into a bad theory. I think he and others (often of limited grasp) do so because like religion, it appears to offer a simple and empowering solution to an overwhelming problem. What we need to do with these people is disabuse them of their error, not spit hate at them, because they are, at the bottom, fellow travellers.

          Brendan.



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...>
          To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
          Cc:
          Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 23:48
          Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

          I wasn't going to comment on this, but Mark asked me what I thought. I'm with him and Mike on it.

          I came across the 'Freeman on the Land' movement a few years ago, after someone posted a link on the diggers350 list mentioning 'lawful rebellion'. Since it was a term I'd used in my own thinking I had a look at the website and (once I'd got over the initial shock) I decided there was some real hunger for reform there so I started posting on their forum. It was a useful experience (and helped me clarify my own ideas), but for the most part the only people who were willing to listen to reason were the ones who quickly turned their back on it when they realised how absurd it was. I posted there for about three months before I finally gave up on them; I eventually came to the conclusion that they're wilfully blind. They're no more resisting the system than someone banging their head againsta castle wall.

          Which is how I sometimes feel about TLIO - especially when I read something like Brendan's comment that 'judges are unequivocally part of the system of privelige and oppression'. Brendan might want us to throw away everything that's been built over the centuries, but most people would rather have imperfect laws than none at all. Where there isn't any law there certainly isn't any justice, and without judges and police there isn't any law. If we want our criticisms of the current system to be taken seriously, we have to recognise that much of it is worthwhile, and we have to recognise that the people who serve it do deserve some respect. It does no good to blame people for the faults of the machine.

          As far as I can see mainstream society is full of people who are uneasy about many aspects of how the world works, but can't see what could be done to put it right. Very often they don't look too hard because they fear that they themselves would lose if it was put right, but most of them wouldn't try and defend something that's clearly indefensible. If we really want to bring about reform we need to get people like that on our side, not simply dismiss them as lackeys of some establishment conspiracy. The courts don't hand down unjust rulings because the judges are wicked, but because they're bound by unjust laws, and they can only go against those laws if someone demonstrates that they're incompatible with other parts of the law - so far, on the land issue, nobody has.

          Brendan would no doubt describe me as a legal nerd, but I'd say my ideas are far more radical than his. Over the last couple of years I've posted various arguments, here and elsewhere, which might force the courts to confront some of the fundamental flaws in the law which deprive people of their right to land - but nobody's shown any interest in taking them forward. I can't get the issue to court myself because I already have as much land as I have any natural right to, so I'm not in a position to provoke a legal dispute. But someone who doesn't have land, if they chose the right place to stake a claim to and were willing to go through the necessary legal (and semi-legal) hoops, could bring the question of land rights back to the centre of the legal and political stage.

          But if nobody's interested .... well, I wish you all luck.






        • Malcolm Ramsay
          Brendan wrote: The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it. Except that it s the
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 12, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Brendan wrote: "The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it."

            Except that it's the technicalities of the law which determine who controls and directs it.

            "They would do nothing so crude as to conspire to break their own laws, they don't have to!"

            That's right, they don't have to .... because the operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them. Where's the need for corruption? As far as I can see, pretty well everyone favours people who share their background - why would you expect the rich and powerful to do otherwise? With the law working the way it does, they just have to behave naturally and wealth and power automatically stays with them. It's the law that's wrong, not the people. I don't understand why you seem to be uninterested in changing laws which are obviously perverse.

            And what's this with 'their own laws'? The Law Is Ours.


            From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
            To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2012, 21:41
            Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

             
            I have already explained to you that I have no difficulty with the principals of law and order, so your repeated explanations/justifications of them are irrelevant, and miss the point anyway. The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it. Senior judges consist of 80%  public school boys. Law makers (government and senior civil servants) are the same ilk, as are pretty well all branches of established power in this country. Despite the ostensive separation of law and government which you trumpet, this highly unrepresentative elite manage to keep their hands on both levers of power. 
            The next thing you need to understand about the corruption of law and government in Britain is that they have been at it for centuries and for that reason, it is most subtle and deeply embeded in the world. They would do nothing so crude as to conspire to break their own laws, they don't have to! The network of school, family and wealth based patronage that has developed over a millennium, and which carefully steers the same people into power, generation upon generation (and equally carefully excludes the rest of us) is of itself, profoundly and intrinsically corrupt. Royalty, the Privy Council, the Inns of Court, the Bar Council, The House of Lords, The Church of England, the landowning/stealing aristocracy, the city, etc; the whole system is rotten with chummy, comfortable corruption. Anyone who lives in Britain and can't see this must be naive beyond words.  

          • Brendan Boal
            because the operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them. Where s the need for corruption? That argument is oxymoronic. It s precisely
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 13, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              "because the operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them. Where's the need for corruption?"

              That argument is oxymoronic. It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt.

              That I have pointed out the principle problem to be hereditary control of the law by an unrepresentative elite does not mean that I think all attempts at reform are useless. Where did you get that from? Not from me. It's perfectly possible and entirely pragmatic to work for improvements on the margin without bending you knee to the whole shbang. I know plenty of people who do exactly that and I have been instrumental in some of them being granted money by TLIO for just that purpose.

              It's true that everybody looks after their own, but not everybody is not running the country. The fact that a docker might be able to get his son into the job is not a justification for 20 Prime Ministers having been old Etonians.


              As for the law being ours, tell that to the Hillsborough families or the Birmingham six or the family of Pat Fenucane or the hundreds who die in police custody without redress. Then compare their treatment to that of police murderers, thieving bankers and lying, hacking, bribing newspaper owners.

              Law is a fine thing in theory and could be in practice in a properly democratic and egalitarian society but as things stand,Thomas Babington Macaulay had it about right when he said: "What are laws but the expression of some class which has power over the rest of the community?"




              From: Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...>
              To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2012, 23:43
              Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge



              Brendan wrote: "The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it."

              Except that it's the technicalities of the law which determine who controls and directs it.

              "They would do nothing so crude as to conspire to break their own laws, they don't have to!"

              That's right, they don't have to .... because the operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them. Where's the need for corruption? As far as I can see, pretty well everyone favours people who share their background - why would you expect the rich and powerful to do otherwise? With the law working the way it does, they just have to behave naturally and wealth and power automatically stays with them. It's the law that's wrong, not the people. I don't understand why you seem to be uninterested in changing laws which are obviously perverse.

              And what's this with 'their own laws'? The Law Is Ours.


              From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
              To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2012, 21:41
              Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

               
              I have already explained to you that I have no difficulty with the principals of law and order, so your repeated explanations/justifications of them are irrelevant, and miss the point anyway. The real problem is less a matter of the technicalities of law, and more to do with who controls and directs it. Senior judges consist of 80%  public school boys. Law makers (government and senior civil servants) are the same ilk, as are pretty well all branches of established power in this country. Despite the ostensive separation of law and government which you trumpet, this highly unrepresentative elite manage to keep their hands on both levers of power. 
              The next thing you need to understand about the corruption of law and government in Britain is that they have been at it for centuries and for that reason, it is most subtle and deeply embeded in the world. They would do nothing so crude as to conspire to break their own laws, they don't have to! The network of school, family and wealth based patronage that has developed over a millennium, and which carefully steers the same people into power, generation upon generation (and equally carefully excludes the rest of us) is of itself, profoundly and intrinsically corrupt. Royalty, the Privy Council, the Inns of Court, the Bar Council, The House of Lords, The Church of England, the landowning/stealing aristocracy, the city, etc; the whole system is rotten with chummy, comfortable corruption. Anyone who lives in Britain and can't see this must be naive beyond words.  





            • Malcolm Ramsay
              Brendan wrote: It s precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Brendan wrote: "It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt."

                If all you meant when you talked of corruption is that there are rotten laws, I've no argument with that. The impression I'd got, however, was that you were accusing the people administering the law of behaving corruptly, and the point I was making is that rotten laws will produce injustice even when they're administered honestly. There's no reason to suppose that most judges are corrupt, and there is good reason (for anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence) to assume that they act with as much integrity as anyone else. They're in a position to force the government to recognise land rights, but if we treat them with contempt we make it harder for them to take our concerns seriously.

                I don't know what you mean by 'hereditary ownership of the law' - where does 'hereditary' come into it? There's hereditary ownership of land (which is one of the fundamental causes of inequality and injustice) but that's a product of the law. It is also one of the most vulnerable points of the existing system because it is so obviously indefensible. I keep bringing it up hoping for some dialogue on how it could be attacked, but no-one, including you, seems interested in discussing it. Improvements on the margin are all very well, but if nobody focuses on the root causes, meaningful reform is never going to happen.

                I'd say that quotation from Macaulay had it completely wrong; laws are not merely the expression of power, they're the means by which it is maintained. Our ability to force the establishment to face the incompatibilities between different laws is one of the most powerful tools we have and dismissing legal arguments as 'technicalities of the law' closes off one of the most promising routes to reform. If we can't claim the law as ours, we certainly can't say the land is ours, because ownership of the land goes where the law allocates it.




                From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
                To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 14:43
                Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge

                 
                "because the operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them. Where's the need for corruption?"

                That argument is oxymoronic. It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt.

                That I have pointed out the principle problem to be hereditary control of the law by an unrepresentative elite does not mean that I think all attempts at reform are useless. Where did you get that from? Not from me. It's perfectly possible and entirely pragmatic to work for improvements on the margin without bending you knee to the whole shbang. I know plenty of people who do exactly that and I have been instrumental in some of them being granted money by TLIO for just that purpose.

                It's true that everybody looks after their own, but not everybody is not running the country. The fact that a docker might be able to get his son into the job is not a justification for 20 Prime Ministers having been old Etonians.


                As for the law being ours, tell that to the Hillsborough families or the Birmingham six or the family of Pat Fenucane or the hundreds who die in police custody without redress. Then compare their treatment to that of police murderers, thieving bankers and lying, hacking, bribing newspaper owners.

                Law is a fine thing in theory and could be in practice in a properly democratic and egalitarian society but as things stand,Thomas Babington Macaulay had it about right when he said: "What are laws but the expression of some class which has power over the rest of the community?"


              • marksimonbrown
                The contention and by implication accusation that there is a hereditary ownership of law wouldn t stand up in court! That said, I think Brendan makes a good
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 17, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  The contention and by implication accusation that there is a "hereditary ownership of law" wouldn't stand up in court!

                  That said, I think Brendan makes a good point badly. It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. The reason for the difference - the rich can afford alot more law than the poor (words of Peter Cook playing the character of High-Court Judge Sir James Beauchamp, on 'Clive Anderson Talks Back' broadcast on Channel-4 in 1993).



                  --- In TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com, Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Brendan wrote: "It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt."
                  >
                  > If all you meant when you talked of corruption is that there are rotten laws, I've no argument with that. The impression I'd got, however, was that you were accusing the people administering the law of behaving corruptly, and the point I was making is that rotten laws will produce injustice even when they're administered honestly. There's no reason to suppose that most judges are corrupt, and there is good reason (for anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence) to assume that they act with as much integrity as anyone else. They're in a position to force the government to recognise land rights, but if we treat them with contempt we make it harder for them to take our concerns seriously.
                  >
                  > I don't know what you mean by 'hereditary ownership of the law' - where does 'hereditary' come into it? There's hereditary ownership of land (which is one of the fundamental causes of inequality and injustice) but that's a product of the law. It is also one of the most vulnerable points of the existing system because it is so obviously indefensible. I keep bringing it up hoping for some dialogue on how it could be attacked, but no-one, including you, seems interested in discussing it. Improvements on the margin are all very well, but if nobody focuses on the root causes, meaningful reform is never going to happen.
                  >
                  > I'd say that quotation from Macaulay had it completely wrong; laws are not merely the expression of power, they're the means by which it is maintained. Our ability to force the establishment to face the incompatibilities between different laws is one of the most powerful tools we have and dismissing legal arguments as 'technicalities of the law' closes off one of the most promising routes to reform. If we can't claim the law as ours, we certainly can't say the land is ours, because ownership of the land goes where the law allocates it.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >________________________________
                  > > From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
                  > >To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
                  > >Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 14:43
                  > >Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 
                  > >"because the
                  > operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them.
                  > Where's the need for corruption?"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > That
                  > argument is oxymoronic. It's precisely the fact of their hereditary
                  > ownership of law and other key levers of power by which theyare empowered and enriched that is
                  > intrinsically corrupt.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >That I have pointed out the principle problem to be hereditary control of
                  > the law by an unrepresentative elite does not mean that I think all
                  > attempts at reform are useless. Where did you get that from? Not from me. It's perfectly possible and entirely pragmatic to work for improvementson the margin without bending you knee to the whole shbang.I know plenty of people who do exactlythat and I have been instrumental in some of them being granted money by TLIO for just that purpose.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > It's
                  > true that everybody looks after their own, but not everybody is not
                  > running the country. The fact that a docker might be able to get his
                  > son into the job is not a justification for 20 Prime Ministers having been old Etonians.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > As
                  > for the law being ours, tell that to the Hillsborough families or
                  > the Birmingham six or the family of Pat Fenucane
                  > or the hundreds who die in police custody
                  > without redress. Then compare their treatment to that of police
                  > murderers, thieving bankers and lying, hacking, bribing newspaper owners.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Law
                  > is a fine thing in theory and could be in practice in a properly
                  > democratic and egalitarian society but as things stand,Thomas
                  > Babington Macaulay had it about right when he said: "What are
                  > laws but the expression of some class which has power over the rest
                  > of the community?"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Brendan Boal
                  In March 2009 the Sutton Trust estimated that 70 percent of the top judges in Britain had been educated at private schools, along with 62 percent of the House
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 18, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In March 2009 the Sutton Trust estimated that 70 percent of the top judges in Britain had been educated at private schools, along with 62 percent of the House of Lords, 55 percent of the senior solicitors, 54 percent of company chiefs and 54 percent of the best-paid journalists. When you consider that privately educated men (they mostly are men) are a very small percentage of the population, and if you also concede that they are not intrinsically better or cleverer than the rest of us, then you cannot avoid concluding that their domination of key positions and professions (especially law) is so startling that it can only be the result of a system that profoundly and corruptly advantages them over the rest of us. Yes, of course the rich can afford more law, but they also own it, along with the other key levers of power, and that goes right to the heart of the inequalities in our society. 

                    For all that our criminal justice system prides it'self on it's impartiality, it's real defining characteristic is that it is a thoroughly one-sided social/economic relationship between those 'doing law', and those having it done unto them. Senior judges, QCs and barristers are highly likely to be the product of a privately educated, well heeled, hereditary elite, defendants are highly likely not to be. So, unless you believe that the poor are naturally more wicked than the rich, you cannot avoid concluding that the question of whether you end up wearing wearing silk or prison fatigues is mostly a matter of who your daddy is: - and what could be more corrupt than that?

                    I must say, I am surprised to find myself defending this position among people who purport to be radical.

                    Brendan. 


                    From: marksimonbrown <mark@...>
                    To: TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 23:57
                    Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] hereditary ownership of law

                    The contention and by implication accusation that there is a "hereditary ownership of law" wouldn't stand up in court!

                    That said, I think Brendan makes a good point badly.  It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.  The reason for the difference - the rich can afford alot more law than the poor (words of Peter Cook playing the character of High-Court Judge Sir James Beauchamp, on 'Clive Anderson Talks Back' broadcast on Channel-4 in 1993).



                    --- In TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com, Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Brendan wrote: "It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt."
                    >
                    > If all you meant when you talked of corruption is that there are rotten laws, I've no argument with that. The impression I'd got, however, was that you were accusing the people administering the law of behaving corruptly, and the point I was making is that rotten laws will produce injustice even when they're administered honestly. There's no reason to suppose that most judges are corrupt, and there is good reason (for anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence) to assume that they act with as much integrity as anyone else. They're in a position to force the government to recognise land rights, but if we treat them with contempt we make it harder for them to take our concerns seriously.
                    >
                    > I don't know what you mean by 'hereditary ownership of the law' - where does 'hereditary' come into it? There's hereditary ownership of land (which is one of the fundamental causes of inequality and injustice) but that's a product of the law. It is also one of the most vulnerable points of the existing system because it is so obviously indefensible. I keep bringing it up hoping for some dialogue on how it could be attacked, but no-one, including you, seems interested in discussing it. Improvements on the margin are all very well, but if nobody focuses on the root causes, meaningful reform is never going to happen.
                    >
                    > I'd say that quotation from Macaulay had it completely wrong; laws are not merely the expression of power, they're the means by which it is maintained. Our ability to force the establishment to face the incompatibilities between different laws is one of the most powerful tools we have and dismissing legal arguments as 'technicalities of the law' closes off one of the most promising routes to reform. If we can't claim the law as ours, we certainly can't say the land is ours, because ownership of the land goes where the law allocates it.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > >________________________________
                    > > From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
                    > >To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
                    > >Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 14:43
                    > >Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > 
                    > >"because the
                    > operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them.
                    > Where's the need for corruption?"
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > That
                    > argument is oxymoronic. It's precisely the fact of their hereditary
                    > ownership of law and other key levers of power by which theyare empowered and enriched that is
                    > intrinsically corrupt. 
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >That I have pointed out the principle problem to be hereditary control of
                    > the law by an unrepresentative elite does not mean that I think all
                    > attempts at reform are useless. Where did you get that from? Not from me. It's perfectly possible and entirely pragmatic to work for improvementson the margin without bending you knee to the whole shbang.I know plenty of people who do exactlythat and I have been instrumental in some of them being granted money by TLIO for just that purpose.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > It's
                    > true that everybody looks after their own, but not everybody is not
                    > running the country. The fact that a docker might be able to get his
                    > son into the job is not a justification for 20 Prime Ministers having been old Etonians.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > As
                    > for the law being ours, tell that to the Hillsborough families or
                    > the Birmingham six or the family of Pat Fenucane
                    > or the hundreds who die in police custody
                    > without redress. Then compare their treatment to that of police
                    > murderers, thieving bankers and lying, hacking, bribing newspaper owners.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Law
                    > is a fine thing in theory and could be in practice in a properly
                    > democratic and egalitarian society but as things stand,Thomas
                    > Babington Macaulay had it about right when he said: "What are
                    > laws but the expression of some class which has power over the rest
                    > of the community?"
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >




                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/

                    <*> Your email settings:
                        Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/join
                        (Yahoo! ID required)

                    <*> To change settings via email:
                        TheLandIsOurs-digest@yahoogroups.com
                        TheLandIsOurs-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        TheLandIsOurs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                  • Malcolm Ramsay
                    Mark wrote: It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. The reason for the difference - the rich can afford a lot more law than
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 19, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark wrote: "It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. The reason for the difference - the rich can afford a lot more law than the poor"

                      I'd say that's less than half the reason, Mark. Sure, the rich can afford more access to law (just as they can afford more healthcare, education, land etc.), but the law also gives them advantages more explicitly, most obviously in inheritance law and tax law. It allows itself to be used for private benefit when wealth is bequeathed without regard for the public benefit, and it makes the poor subservient to the rich when it requires them to pay taxes in money (which has to be obtained from someone richer) rather than in labour (which they can supply directly themselves).

                      To my mind the question is: if we want reform, what target should we aim at? The flaws in how the legal system functions (which is intrinsically complex), or the obvious holes in the law itself?


                      From: marksimonbrown <mark@...>
                      To: TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 23:57
                      Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] hereditary ownership of law

                       
                      The contention and by implication accusation that there is a "hereditary ownership of law" wouldn't stand up in court!

                      That said, I think Brendan makes a good point badly. It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. The reason for the difference - the rich can afford alot more law than the poor (words of Peter Cook playing the character of High-Court Judge Sir James Beauchamp, on 'Clive Anderson Talks Back' broadcast on Channel-4 in 1993).


                    • Malcolm Ramsay
                      Brendan wrote: [....] you cannot avoid concluding that their domination of key positions and professions (especially law) is so startling that it can only be
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 19, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Brendan wrote: " [....] you cannot avoid concluding that their domination of key positions and professions (especially law) is so startling that it can only be the result of a system that profoundly and corruptly advantages them over the rest of us."

                        Actually, Brendan, you can easily avoid thinking there's any corruption involved. They don't have to be 'intrinsically better or cleverer than the rest of us' to be profoundly advantaged; they receive an education which is aimed at equipping them for those roles, among peers who expect to do something similar and who would likely ridicule them if they intended to become, say, a plumber or a taxi driver. In contrast, people from poorer backgrounds don't receive such a focused education, and often speak of meeting resistance from their own families and peer group when they aspire to become lawyers. That's why parents send their children to private schools. There's nothing corrupt about it, it's just people behaving naturally -  taking the world as they find it, and making the most of the opportunities which present themselves - within a system whose laws (perniciously) favour them. Do you really believe that some Old Boys Network is a bigger contributor to inequality than unequal inheritance?

                        There's no argument about the fact that there is something rotten in the current system, but it's a question of what we focus on. On the one hand there are clearly identifiable laws which are quite obviously unfair, which even their beneficiaries would struggle to defend, but which persist because they are so deeply embedded that nearly everyone takes them for granted. On the other hand there is - arguably - some kind of nebulous conspiracy which requires large numbers of wicked people to work together to do everybody else down. Even if it's true, what exactly do you think can be done about it?



                        From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
                        To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, 18 December 2012, 14:15
                        Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] hereditary ownership of law

                         
                        In March 2009 the Sutton Trust estimated that 70 percent of the top judges in Britain had been educated at private schools, along with 62 percent of the House of Lords, 55 percent of the senior solicitors, 54 percent of company chiefs and 54 percent of the best-paid journalists. When you consider that privately educated men (they mostly are men) are a very small percentage of the population, and if you also concede that they are not intrinsically better or cleverer than the rest of us, then you cannot avoid concluding that their domination of key positions and professions (especially law) is so startling that it can only be the result of a system that profoundly and corruptly advantages them over the rest of us. Yes, of course the rich can afford more law, but they also own it, along with the other key levers of power, and that goes right to the heart of the inequalities in our society. 

                        For all that our criminal justice system prides it'self on it's impartiality, it's real defining characteristic is that it is a thoroughly one-sided social/economic relationship between those 'doing law', and those having it done unto them. Senior judges, QCs and barristers are highly likely to be the product of a privately educated, well heeled, hereditary elite, defendants are highly likely not to be. So, unless you believe that the poor are naturally more wicked than the rich, you cannot avoid concluding that the question of whether you end up wearing wearing silk or prison fatigues is mostly a matter of who your daddy is: - and what could be more corrupt than that?

                        I must say, I am surprised to find myself defending this position among people who purport to be radical.

                        Brendan. 


                        From: marksimonbrown <mark@...>
                        To: TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 23:57
                        Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] hereditary ownership of law

                        The contention and by implication accusation that there is a "hereditary ownership of law" wouldn't stand up in court!

                        That said, I think Brendan makes a good point badly.  It is clear that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.  The reason for the difference - the rich can afford alot more law than the poor (words of Peter Cook playing the character of High-Court Judge Sir James Beauchamp, on 'Clive Anderson Talks Back' broadcast on Channel-4 in 1993).



                        --- In TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com, Malcolm Ramsay <malcolm.ramsay@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Brendan wrote: "It's precisely the fact of their hereditary ownership of law and other key levers of power by which they are empowered and enriched that is intrinsically corrupt."
                        >
                        > If all you meant when you talked of corruption is that there are rotten laws, I've no argument with that. The impression I'd got, however, was that you were accusing the people administering the law of behaving corruptly, and the point I was making is that rotten laws will produce injustice even when they're administered honestly. There's no reason to suppose that most judges are corrupt, and there is good reason (for anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence) to assume that they act with as much integrity as anyone else. They're in a position to force the government to recognise land rights, but if we treat them with contempt we make it harder for them to take our concerns seriously.
                        >
                        > I don't know what you mean by 'hereditary ownership of the law' - where does 'hereditary' come into it? There's hereditary ownership of land (which is one of the fundamental causes of inequality and injustice) but that's a product of the law. It is also one of the most vulnerable points of the existing system because it is so obviously indefensible. I keep bringing it up hoping for some dialogue on how it could be attacked, but no-one, including you, seems interested in discussing it. Improvements on the margin are all very well, but if nobody focuses on the root causes, meaningful reform is never going to happen.
                        >
                        > I'd say that quotation from Macaulay had it completely wrong; laws are not merely the expression of power, they're the means by which it is maintained. Our ability to force the establishment to face the incompatibilities between different laws is one of the most powerful tools we have and dismissing legal arguments as 'technicalities of the law' closes off one of the most promising routes to reform. If we can't claim the law as ours, we certainly can't say the land is ours, because ownership of the land goes where the law allocates it.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > >________________________________
                        > > From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal@...>
                        > >To: "TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com" <TheLandIsOurs@yahoogroups.com>
                        > >Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 14:43
                        > >Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] Freemen on the Land are “parasites” peddling “pseudolegal nonsense” - ruling by Canadian judge
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > 
                        > >"because the
                        > operation of law is the very thing which empowers and enriches them.
                        > Where's the need for corruption?"
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > That
                        > argument is oxymoronic. It's precisely the fact of their hereditary
                        > ownership of law and other key levers of power by which theyare empowered and enriched that is
                        > intrinsically corrupt. 
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >That I have pointed out the principle problem to be hereditary control of
                        > the law by an unrepresentative elite does not mean that I think all
                        > attempts at reform are useless. Where did you get that from? Not from me. It's perfectly possible and entirely pragmatic to work for improvementson the margin without bending you knee to the whole shbang.I know plenty of people who do exactlythat and I have been instrumental in some of them being granted money by TLIO for just that purpose.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > It's
                        > true that everybody looks after their own, but not everybody is not
                        > running the country. The fact that a docker might be able to get his
                        > son into the job is not a justification for 20 Prime Ministers having been old Etonians.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > As
                        > for the law being ours, tell that to the Hillsborough families or
                        > the Birmingham six or the family of Pat Fenucane
                        > or the hundreds who die in police custody
                        > without redress. Then compare their treatment to that of police
                        > murderers, thieving bankers and lying, hacking, bribing newspaper owners.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Law
                        > is a fine thing in theory and could be in practice in a properly
                        > democratic and egalitarian society but as things stand,Thomas
                        > Babington Macaulay had it about right when he said: "What are
                        > laws but the expression of some class which has power over the rest
                        > of the community?"
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >




                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/

                        <*> Your email settings:
                            Individual Email | Traditional

                        <*> To change settings online go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLandIsOurs/join
                            (Yahoo! ID required)

                        <*> To change settings via email:
                            TheLandIsOurs-digest@yahoogroups.com
                            TheLandIsOurs-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            TheLandIsOurs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.