The Bizzle

"Saving your ass since 1999"

Occupy Woo Street

King John, modelling his Magna Carta hair

I’m not the man to give you learned commentary on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Occupy LSX eviction case. I don’t think there’s much call for the in house view on public law issues.

I am, however, absolutely the man to poke fun at Paul Randle-Jollliffe. Here are paragraphs 29-31 of the Occupy LSX judgment:

29. With the exception of Ms Samede, the defendants making the present applications are seeking to set aside all the orders made by Lindblom J, on the basis that they contend that the Judge ought not to have found for the City at all, but should have dismissed the claim and allowed the Camp to continue in place. It is convenient to deal first with one or two rather esoteric arguments raised by Mr Randle-Jolliffe.

30. First, he challenged the judgment on the ground that it did not apply to him, as a ‘Magna Carta heir’. But that is a concept unknown to the law. He also says that his ‘Magna Carta rights’ would be breached by execution of the orders. But only chapters 1, 9 and 29 of Magna Carta (1297 version) survive. Chapter 29, with its requirement that the state proceeds according to the law, and its prohibition on the selling or delaying of justice, is seen by many as the historical foundation for the rule of law in England, but it has no bearing on the arguments in this case. Somewhat ironically, the other two chapters concern the rights of the Church and the City ofLondon, and cannot help the defendants. Mr Randle-Jolliffe also invokes ‘constitutional and superior law issues’ which, he alleges, prevail over statutory, common law, and human rights law. Again that is simply wrong – at least in a court of law.

31. Another ground he raised was the contention that the City had no locus standi to bring the proceedings ‘as the current Mayoral position has been previously usurped by the Guilds and Aldermen in Contravention of the City ofLondon’s 1215 Royal Charter’. We do not understand that point, not least because both the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen and Guilds (through the Commonalty and Citizens) are included in the claimants.

I’m rather fond of the dry manner in which the judiciary respond to “esoteric arguments”. What those of a more excitable temperament might call “batshit crazy”, Lord Justice Burnton calls “a concept unknown to the law”.

One wonders what “a Magna Carta heir” might be, if such a concept existed. The estimable Scrapper Duncan (who is a member of the Occupy LSX legal team) suggests that Randle-Jolliffe attempted to introduce his family tree into proceedings, which raises the possibility that he means that he is of baronial descent (never mind that the greater proportion of the population can say the same after the 20-odd generations that have passed since the Magna Carta).

On the other hand, this suggestion from Adam Wagner makes just as much sense:

An insistence on the currency of thirteenth century charters is, of course, a trope of the Freeman on the Land woo theory. Whether or not Mr Randle-Jolliffe would describe himself as such I do not know, but a brief consultation with Doctor Google shows that he is a serial maker of bizarre Freedom of Information requests and “a practising Lay Law/Legal Advocate in Family Law and other areas of law”.

Many of those FOI requests allege bias and fraud in the administration of family law, which is an area where we have seen Freemen and their fellow-travellers before. Thankfully, however, the voters of the Isle of Wight contained their alarm at the prospect of “state kidnapping” and did not return Mr Randle-Jolliffe when he stood for Parliament there in 2010.

I should make it clear that the title of this post is intended as a joke, and that I do not believe that Paul Randle-Jolliffe is representative of the Occupy movement or even of any significant strand of opinion within it. ScrapperDuncan’s analysis of the judgment and of Mr Randle-Jolliffe’s role in the appeal is a useful corrective to that view.

But it is a shame that this peddler of arrant woo is able to attach his name to the Occupy cause in a public setting, especially as he is not the only such person to have done so. There is a real risk that this reinforces a view that the movement is animated by irrational political and social views, and can be safely marginalised and disregarded.

On the other hand, it may be of some benefit that the sheer wrongness of woo theory is highlighted by the courts from time to time, to the extent that it deters some who might otherwise be attracted by its claims of efficacy in legal disputes.

It is doubtful, however, that being called “simply wrong” will deter Mr Randle-Jolliffe from his beliefs. For the true believers, the refusal of the courts to recognise their own illegitimacy merely demonstrates that self-same illegitimacy.

But then I’m a corporate shill, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?

17 responses to “Occupy Woo Street

  1. @karensmate (Jacquline) February 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Some people are just plain bonkers!

  2. Kris February 27, 2012 at 9:40 am

    I’m intrigued by these knuckle-heads. They remind me of the American Tea Party – except our Freemen haven’t received the Parliamentary Supremacy memo: the UK Constitution is whatever Parliament says it is.

    I do enjoy an elegant judicial smack-down.

    I suspect, however, our Freemen friends will simply see it as invalid because the case was heard by “the Government” rather than by a jury of their peers.

    Bless.

  3. Pingback: Law | Pearltrees

  4. Antonin I. Pribetic February 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    I AM CALLED EDITH! YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID! GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY!

  5. David (@kermitbantam) February 28, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Thank you for the thoughts of Mr Randle of the Jolliffe. It’s really brightened my afternoon

  6. Guest March 1, 2012 at 9:07 am

    You’re trying very hard to ignore obvious concepts in favour of legal dogma. Well done.

  7. Paul Randle-Jolliffe August 31, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    One very important question from me would be:- Why did the Master of the Rolls take upon himself to invent evidence that was never presented by me. In light of this I think you will find the woo is on the other foot and in fact on the foot of the Master of the Rolls foot.

    • David Allen Green September 1, 2012 at 11:44 am

      Hi Paul

      What was the evidence you say was invented by the Master of the Rolls? In the passage quoted above, the Master of the Rolls appears to be dealing with your legal submissions rather than any evidential points.

      David

      • Scrapper Duncan September 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Dear David,

        Perhaps I can help with that. I do not believe that Mr Randle-Jolliffe (PRJ) is going to be able to answer the question himself. I’ve included a lengthy Facebook thread he had with another sceptical critic after the third paragraph on this post:

        http://blog.scrapperduncan.com/2012/05/20/paul-randle-jolliffe-charges-money-for-legal-woo-seminars/

        In passing, you’ll note that this Facebook exchange refers to the post we’re commenting on here, which reveals that PRJ knew about it a little before 20th May 2012. Be that as it may, in the Facebook thread which I published, you’ll see towards the end a statement by PRJ which says:

        “I must do something about the master of the rolls falsehoods he is not allowed to invent a submission or evidence that I did not give”

        That remark suggests that PRJ has indeed muddled up the distinction between evidence and submissions. Curiously, for someone who boasts of his legal and advocacy experience, PRJ adopts a variety of spellings for the Master of the Rolls. Perhaps that is his attempt at humour. Perhaps it reveals that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

        In the same thread he vigorously debates with Gareth Newnham whether of not a group called ‘Ministry of Freedom’ exists and, if so, whether PRJ himself is a Freeman on the Land enthusiast. It’s absolutely clear from the links in the Facebook thread and the screen dumps I have produced in the post that PRJ falsely accuses Mr Newnham of inventing the ‘Ministry of Freedom’. In my view, so clear is both its existence and PRJ’s connection to it that for him to make this claim can only either mean that he doesn’t know what is going on or cannot read/follow links, which may amount to the same thing these days.

        My suggestion is that there is the suggestion of a pattern emerging here. At the very lowest interpretation, it would appear that PRJ has more than once claimed invention in place of reality. Whether he does that because of delusion, tactical sophistry, confusion or whatever, I cannot say.

    • Paul Randle-Jolliffe April 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm

      I never made the submission “First, he challenged the judgement on the ground that it did not apply to him,” The Master of the Rolls invented that entirely.

      WHERE WAS THAT SUBMITTED BY ME?

      It was not in the paper submissions and not given orally (50 or so witnesses to that!)

      The Master of the Rolls seems to have presumed I am a Freeman on the Land, which I am not, never have been and do not agree with and based his judgement on a presumed falsehood of his own imagination and invention that you have bought into.

      Thereby breaching section 29

      You state “An insistence on the currency of thirteenth century charters is, of course, a trope of the Freeman on the Land woo theory.”

      But the Magna Carta that was at issue is CURRENT STATUTE

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents

      This was confirmed by the Master of the Rolls in court!!! Also he confirmed that it was still applicable to the City of London.

      Coke interpreted Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally.

      Lord Denning described it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”

      That there were three sections still in statute in the 1297 version and he asked me specifically do I wish to rely on Section 29? to which I replied I wished to rely on all three 1. 9. & 29.

      You will find that heirs is mentioned .is mentioned FOUR times in section 1 of the CURRENT STATUTE

      I Confirmation of Liberties.

      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.

      Hardly UNKNOWN TO LAW therefore!

      Methinks the master of the Rolls Fudged and used a slight of Judgement that misrepresented me and my submission. I think that is WOO!

      Halsbury’s Laws of England/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (VOLUME 8(2) (REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM/ (2) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION/7. Sources of powers and duties.

      7. Sources of powers and duties.

      10 The powers of the Queen in Parliament to enact laws are discussed in para 232 post. The Magna Carta of Edward I (1297), the Petition of Right (1627), the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement, being in the nature of solemn compacts between the monarch and people, are usually designated quasi-statutes.

      I claimed rights and I evidenced my rights and breaches of them and I believe the Master could not allow those to succeed so HE MISREPRESENTED!

      HILARIOUS if it was not so outrageous for a senior judge.

      I can only think four things as a result

      1. He cannot read and needs remedial English Lessons
      2. He is not competent as a judge
      3. My submissions and argument were good but he compromised in his Judgement deliberately for some reason.
      4. He made an error in law.

      Unfortunately due to Access to Justice Act 1999 it was not possible to appeal to the Supreme Court

      Imagine if I had won what would the repercussions have been?

  8. Pingback: Nonsensical codswallop « Avizandum Times

  9. Paul Randle-Jolliffe April 8, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    31. Another ground he raised was the contention that the City had no locus standi to bring the proceedings ‘as the current Mayoral position has been previously usurped by the Guilds and Aldermen in Contravention of the City ofLondon’s 1215 Royal Charter’. We do not understand that point, not least because both the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen and Guilds (through the Commonalty and Citizens) are included in the claimants.

    The City of London is the Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London.

    The charter of May 1215 gives the right to the Citizens/Barons/Freeman (these are interchangeable), to choose the mayor not the Aldermen as is currently practised. Only 3 of the 25 Wards (WardMotes) of the City of London are comprised of Citizens the electors for the others are nominated by 4,000 or so Businesses from their employees.

    Many of these businesses are NON UK, NON COMMONWEALTH and NON EU such as BANK OF CHINA http://www.boc.cn/cn/html/london/about-boc.html

    So in 23 WardMotes the non citizen electors chosen by Companies including non democratic State Institutions who can choose the Alderman. And the Alderman choose the Mayor.

    The Mayor cannot be said to have been chosen either directly or indirectly by the Citizens of London as per its charter.

    It would be a similar argument used if the Electors of say another place in England had the right to choose their Mayor but the Counsellors chose the major instead. There would be no legitimate Mayor and any action brought in such a mayors name would be void.

    But then the court stated “We do not understand that point.” But neither did it seek to deal with the issue or the evidence presented to it.

    It is also important to note that those common council members elected by the citizens on the committee that decided to bring the action in court voted against doing so, only those elected in wards elected by nominees of companies voted in favour of doing so.

    So you had a case brought in the name of an illegitimate Mayor in the name of that Mayor and the citizens where no citizen had either voted for either that Mayor or those common council members.

  10. Paul Randle-Jolliffe April 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    Magna Carta

    Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

    15/06/2005

    Then, in the next reign, on 28th March 1297, Edward I, the “father of Parliament”, signed letters patent containing the Charter which were entered on statute rolls so that, in so far as it has not been repealed, it binds the Crown even today. Indeed, the first petition presented by the commons to the monarch at each new parliament is a request that the Great Charta be kept

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/speeches/2005/magna-carta-precedent-recent-constitutional-change.

  11. jolliffe December 3, 2013 at 9:43 am

    I object thoroughly to you implying by reference that I am one of the FOTL, please evidence that or remove as I am not.

  12. Pingback: TEST POST for John Cooper QC v Giles Bradshaw Mock Civil Case Tara KS Lead Counsel and Kate Hillier Junior counsel defending and prosecuting with real data and people! John Cooper QC Citations, Awards, for work done re:his utter fitness to practice Law |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: