Submitted by Caswell Franklyn
Cecil McCarthy QC (l) Caswell Franklyn (c) Jeff Cumberbatch (r)
I have always said, rather simplistically, that since the language of instruction in Barbados is English: in the end, no matter which subject we are studying, we are really doing English comprehension. Rightly or wrongly, I have adopted that approach and so far it has worked for me.
In the Midweek Nation of March 23, 2011 and on this blog, I wrote a piece where I questioned whether the recent amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act was sufficient to enable Mr. Marston Gibson to be appointed to the post of Chief Justice of Barbados.
In my opinion, the amendment was crafted to ensure that Mr. Gibson’s experience in New York would go toward his qualification for the post. It stated, in part, that the person should have practiced in the Commonwealth or a common law jurisdiction for fifteen years. I argued that for the purposes of Barbados law, New York is not a common law jurisdiction and he would therefore not qualify. I found support for my position in the Interpretation Act, Chapter 1 of the laws of Barbados.
Two persons have written, in the newspapers, making reference to my interpretation. Writing in the Midweek Nation of March 30, 2011, my friend and teacher, Cecil McCarthy, offered a differing more inclusive interpretation. Even so, without more, I am clinging to my interpretation. In the end if I am proven to be incorrect, you can only blame Mr. McCarthy because he would not have done a good enough job teaching me law at the Community College.
In his column, in the Advocate of March 27, 2011, Mr. Jeff Cumberbatch rather condescendingly referred to me as a “learned layman” and attempted, and I must emphasise attempted, to clarify the issue. However, after reading his reasoning I must say that he left the issue as clear as mud. He wrote,
“The legislation, as amended, now speaks to the ‘common law’, unfortunately without expressly defining it. I saw some correspondence last week from ‘a learned layman’, which points to the definition provided under the Interpretation Act as ‘the common law of England’. Of course, this does not mean the substantive common law of that jurisdiction; for in many respects that does not obtain here…”
I was quite surprised to learn that the common law of England in many respects does not even obtain here. That differs from what Mr. McCarthy and others taught me at the Barbados Community College. Recalling from memory, because I have long lost my notes, my teachers taught me that the common law decisions of English courts would bind our courts. However, since the facts of any two cases were never exactly alike, so in order to avoid injustice or hardship the judge would find some material difference from the earlier case and refuse to lay down the law as had been laid down previously. The judge is said to be distinguishing the present case from the ruling that was given in the previous one.
To my mind that does not mean that the English common law precedent no longer applied here in many respects. While I hate to argue law with a teacher of law: his interpretation defies common sense reasoning, or at least my reasoning. Further, he went on to write that the “reference might have been intended to the system of common law practiced in England…”
I find that to be too imprecise for a teacher of law. My teachers at the community college taught me that words in a statute are given their literal meaning. Only where that meaning would produce an absurdity would you try to find out what was the intent what was the intent of Parliament.
I daresay that the words of the amendment are crystal clear, and should be given their ordinary meaning and not some legal gymnastics to produce Government’s desired result. I wish to say that I do not know Mr. Gibson nor am I holding a brief for anyone. My interest stems from the manner in which Government amended the law to accommodate one man. I find it particularly offensive and I know that I have the right to freedom of expression under the Constitution, and I choose to express.
@Caswell
Are you sure Jeff did not pay you a compliment?
Caswell Franklyn said:
“I was quite surprised to learn that the common law of England in many respects does not even obtain here. That differs from what Mr. McCarthy and others taught me at the Barbados Community College. Recalling from memory, because I have long lost my notes, my teachers taught me that the common law decisions of English courts would bind our courts.”
This is not correct. The common law decisions of England do not bind our courts. English decisions constitute persuasive authority but are not binding.
So for example, an attorney in Bim can refer to an English House of Lords decision and say to the Judge “I believe the judgment of the Lord XX in this case is well reasoned and should be followed by this honourable court” and the Judge is at liberty to say “I think the reasoning is flawed and I won’t be following it”.
@Hants
Your interjections are always crafted to keep us focused oh learned fisherman 🙂
I also agree with David. When I read Jeff’s article, I thought he meant the comment as a compliment.
Caswell wrote “Even so, without more, I am clinging to my interpretation.”
Hants will accept interpretations of LAW from Lawyers and Law professors so I patiently await the response by Jeff or Anonlegal.
And David how learned do you have to be to be considered a “learned layman”.
Am I learned enough to have that “title”?
If so you can call me a learned fisherman.
David I have to keep myself focused too so I going and fish for Rainbow and Brown Trout at the Rouge River Mouth.
Have to get some exercise.
Later.
Good article Caswell !
Poor responses from Hants and the like
When will some people get serious ?
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on that point Caswell. New York is a state of the United States of America which is a common law jurisdiction. The common law does not have one set definition. It has several definitions. The primary definition would be the body of judge-made law derived from the courts of law in England. America was formerly an English colony before the War of Independence. Therefore, America received the common law of England on settlement as an English colony because it is a fact that when settlors migrate from England they take English law with them as their birthright. This is the very same common law that obtains in The Bahamas, Barbados, England, and the United States of America of which New York is a state. Perhaps your argument would gain more ground if your position was that there is a presumption of statutory interpretation that legislation is not interpreted with retrospective effect. However, that is not the position that you took, your argument on the interpretative point is flawed.
@Caswell
Did you conveniently omit how eminent retired jurist Sir Roy Marshall views this matter i.e. the change to commonwealth to common law?
TO BFP
Sound reasoning.
Wait BFP cross hey..? David you sleeping ..?
Caswell hush, yah ain’ mekkin’ nah sense… Of Dear that puts me on the same side as BFP… Oh shit man, I gun regret this
The common law of England still recognises libel and slander. This distinction has been abolished in Barbados bythe Defamation Act 1996. I agree with Cumberbatch.
Wait this is BFP
Pinch me somebody
Clear the air somsbody
What goes around comes around
In any case,Caswell should be happy. Why has Gibson not been officially appointed? Could there be something wrong? Moore continues to act indefinitely.
I agree with Mr. Cumberbatch. No need to why he has done enough. I will ask though when you all comment do you just seek to out whit the other or do you seek to add knowledge and common understanding ? If you seek to only out whit then you are doing us all a disservice.
To All:
I am not a “learned layman; I can’t even lay a brick straight, but why do we in Barbados take everything that is said by these so called experts hook line and sinker.
Why do you have to engage in more legal WEST INDIES training to practice law in the US when you are trained in the West Indies. Why do you have to engage in more training to practice law in the West Indies when you are trained in the US. Could the answer be that they are TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS.
Hence, if Mr. Gibson has been in the US system for too long, does this not mean he can not qualify to equate that experience to the WEST INDIES system?
I am still convince that Caswell has a fundamental point. The amendment should have incorporated the US experience to allow it to be applied in Mr. Marston Gibson’s case.
Lemuel Areti
someone initially trained in the UK has to undergo more “training” if desirous of practising in West Indies (except Trinidad) and vice versa. So by your logic, these are two different legal systems, yet this is not the commonly held view.
To Ping Pong:
If I am trained to fuction within a system, any system be it legal or otherwise, if i am transported by any means to any similar sytem, I should be able to function becuase the system will be the same. If I am required to undergo additional or more training that would suggst that these systems are not the same. Hence Caswell’s question as to what the word Commonwealth entails has to be qualified. It seems that like you the framers of this Marston amemdment had the “commonly held view” that New York’s commonwealth like Massesusett’s are the same as the west indies and british or indian or australian or other commonwealth jurisdictions.
在任何情况下进行了非常有趣的论点-任命。
@caswell
“that the person should have practiced in the Commonwealth or a common law jurisdiction for fifteen years” is that statement also implying that anyone practicing law in new york can also now practice in barbados?
@Ting Long
“在任何情况下进行了非常有趣的论点-任命”
您是一头愚笨的落后公驴
BFP et al
I am still willing to be pursuaded that I am wrong: only that Jeff Cumberbatch’s reasoning does not make sense to me and I remain unconvinced.
I agree that there are several definitions of the term “common law”, but for the purposes of Barbados law “common law” is defined in the Interpretation Act Chapter 1 of the Laws of Barbados. “Common law” is defined, at Section 46, as the common law of England. Further, Section 3 of the same Act states:
Every provision of this Act shall extend and apply to every enactment whether passed or made before or after the 16th June, 1966; unless a contrary intention appears in this Act or the enactment.
The term “common law” was not defined in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act so no contrary intention appeared in that Act. According to Section 3 of the Interpretation Act you must use the definition that is found there and not anywhere else.
Anonlegal, I hope you are not a lawyer because you do not understand that a judge finds some material difference from the English precedent so that he would not be obliged to follow the English decision, at least that is what I was taught by Messrs McCarthy and Chandler and so far I see no reason to doubt their teaching.
I am willing to learn. If I am wrong show me. Your name and title are not going to be enough to pursuade me without more.
Smooth Chocolate
That is a very good question. I dont think the framers of that amendment has ever considered that point. They were only concerned with employing their friend. Wouldn’t it be strange that a person with fifteen years practice in New York can be a Judge in Barbados, but the same person could not qualify to be a lawyer in Barbados. Something to think about, I don’t have the answer. I have never even considered it until you asked the question.
Lemuel Areti
I have made no comment about the similarity or difference between the legal systems of the USA and the West Indies . I only refer to the fallacy of the argument you have presented i.e. since West Indian attorneys on relocating to the USA have to undergo further training and vice versa ergo this is indicative of a significant difference in legal systems such that Mr Gibson’s experience there may not reasonably qualify him for appointment.
Ting Long
没有，他没有变成一个有趣的问题。他做了一个错误的问题。
Caswell Franklyn said:
“Anonlegal, I hope you are not a lawyer because you do not understand that a judge finds some material difference from the English precedent so that he would not be obliged to follow the English decision, at least that is what I was taught by Messrs McCarthy and Chandler and so far I see no reason to doubt their teaching.
I am willing to learn. If I am wrong show me. Your name and title are not going to be enough to pursuade me without more.”
Yes caswell, you are incorrect in this instance. A High Court judge in Barbados is not bound by a decision made in England.
High Court judges are bound by decisions by the Court of Appeal of Barbados and the judges of appeal are bound by decisions of the CCJ. The CCJ is the final court of appeal and is not bound by the decisions of any other court.
You are correct when you say that there are some circumstances where a court will distinguish the facts of one case from the facts of another. Judges do it all the time.
However, if the House of Lords came to a decision tomorrow that is inconsistent with a decision made in the Court of Appeal of Barbados, a Barbadian High Court judge is at liberty to say “I am not bound by the House of Lords decision and therefore will not follow it”. He does not need to go through the trouble of distinguishing the facts of the case. In fact, the judge would be obliged to follow the Court of Appeal decision (unless he can distinguish the facts of the case that he must decide).
Caswell,
If McCarthy and Chandler taught you that the local courts are BOUND by the decisions of English courts, then you were taught wrong.
@Anonlegal | April 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM | Agreed.
Listened to an interesting program today on the Voice of Barbados hosted by David Ellis who moderated a panel of lawyers, Hal Gollop, Weekes, VP of the Bar and a Roachford. They all agreed as one to the fact we have a problem with how justice is administered in Barbados.
BU feels vindicated given the position we have taken and others in the family on this matter. It is good to see traditional media joining the lobby.
to caswell- i cannot say that i agree or disagree with your argument because i am not a ‘learned layman” whatever that is, but at least when juxtaposed against the reasoning of your former teacher and the reasoning of the law profesor, your reasoning even if incorrect is logical, clear, understandable and is food for thought. on the other hand, mr cumberbatch’s reasoning like most of his articles is confusing without any definitive position; and mr mccarthy’s reasoning seems to be skirting the issue and at the very best is muddled without any definitive position either. i am yet to understand from them in clear and concise language whether the amendment still poses problems to mr gibson’s immediate ascendancy to the post of chief justice or poses a further impediment as as the “learned layman’s” reasoning indicates.
Caswell
I am not disputing your authorities. I am disputing your interpretation of those authorities. It is a simple historical fact that the common law of England is what the law of the United States of America and New York is based upon. A simple wikipedia search of the law of the United States of America will answer that point conclusively. As a result of history the common law of England is the law of America and New York as a result of colonization. The fact that the Interpretation Act states the common law means the common law of England does not preclude a judge from looking at wider considerations in the interpretation of the Act in question. The judge in interpreting an Act of Parliament does not first look at the Interpretation Act. They look at the ordinary meaning of the word, this is the literal approach. What is the common law? Then they look to the purpose of the Act which is called the purposive approach. The Act purports to allow a legal scholar trained and practiced in the law of the United States to be appointed Chief Justice of Barbados. The issue therefore is whether New York is a common law jurisdiction for the purposes of the statute. The common law of England is what obtains as a result of history and colonization and migration in the USA. Even if you restrict the definition of common law to common law of England, the historial circumstances of empire and colonisation defeat that argument. The common law of England is applied in more countries than just England Caswell. It is applied throughout the Commonwealth and also the United States of America. So even given the most strained interpretation of the phrase ‘common law of England’ the judge must recognise the history surrounding the common law of England through the doctrine of judicial notice. This doctrine means the judge must take cognisance of matters of common knowledge such as history. The American War of Independence was between the US and the England. America won the war with the help of France. A matter that is capable of judicial notice does not even need to be proved in a court of law.
BFP
I hope that you are not a lawyer because you must lose a lot of cases. No one practicing in our courts cites any case law from New York. They cite appeal cases that bind our courts. I am dealing with common law cases.
When you see the words, “for the purposes of this Act” in an act of Parliament, the definition given in the act applies, not the ordinary meaning. In this case common law has a restricted meaning for the purposes of Barbados law.
Anonlegal
You pointed out that the High Courts in Barbados is not bound to accept the decisions of the Courts in England; is that why most Caricom states are reluctant in joining the CCJ?
Caswell
I’m not taking you on. If you think your argument is the one that the court will find the most favour with then I would invite you to apply to the court and challenge the learned gentleman from New York’s appointment. I and every other legal mind that has engaged in discussion on this point believe such a challenge would be hopeless. Because as I have said, if you take even the narrow meaning of common law that you take you still would lose. All common law comes from England, everywhere, England is the historical source of the common law. That is why I argued against your interpretation. However, my argument does not have to be the end of the matter, take it to court if you believe you have a legitimate belief, perhaps you may add to the jurisprudence of the common law.
If judgements are made based on English laws and cases surely a man as educated as Marston Gibson can do like ALL the other judges in Barbados and read the books with the relevant laws.
Some of you don’t want Marston Gibson to be CJ. Plain and simple.
I want him to be CJ even though he is not a Kolij boy like me.
Marston Gibson will be an asset to the Judiciary in Barbados.
Mr Franklyn,
My sincerest apologies if my reference to you as a “learned layman” caused offence. Indeed, I meant it as a compliment, in that while you are a layman in the technical sense of that term, you display many qualities in your legal submissions that would equal those from many who are entitled to be called “learned”. Hence “learned layman”. Again, my apologies. I did not at all intend to be condescending.
That having been said, however, my sole point was that the common law of England as used in the Interpretation Act cannot mean the SUBSTANTIVE common law of England, but rather the procedural tenets of this common law.
For example, as I think Spratt pointed out, our defamation law differs from that of the English common law, as do our consumer laws and our law relating to damages for wrongful termination of employment.
But so far as the non-substantive rules of the common law are concerned, we follow these as do many jurisdictions whose system of law is derived from England. These would include the presumption of innocence, that the prosecution must prove iits case beyond reasonable doubt, and the doctrine of precedent to cite a few.
Thus, in my view, the common law of England as used in the Interpretation Act means the SYSTEM of common law as practiced in England and NOT the common law rules of England, some of which have already been replaced by statutory provision.
Incidentally, both McCarthy and Chandler are good friends of mine; in fact Chandler is family; and I doubt either of those gentlemen would agree with a proposition that the decisons of an English court are binding on the Barbadian courts. I am certain they said “persuasive”. I’ll stay online for a while to respond to queries.
@Jeff
Thanks as always for taking the time to clarify the issues for the BU family.
Mr. Cumberbatch
Your apology is accepted: I misunderstood you and I should really apologise to you and I do apologise.
I must admit that my understanding of the law is limited, and I am willing to concede to superior knowledge but only after I am shown evidence to convince me. If I were one of the disciples of Christ, I would be Thomas: you would have to show me the wound and let me touch it.
Both you and Spratt have written about our defamation laws and claim that they are different from those of the English common law. That is true, but, our defamation laws are not common law.
The common law is not written in stone and as a matter of fact :it is not written. Parliament is supreme and may abolish any rule of common law or equity, and accordingly, Parliament passed the Defamation Act. That is the reason for the difference in the laws. Another example, Parliament abolished the rule in Whitby v. Michell by Section 182 of the Property Act. I can cite other examples where statute has abolished the common law. As a result, I believe that the SUBSTANTIVE common law of England is the common law of Barbados. To do otherwise would be importing words into a statute when there is no need because the actual wording is clear and unambiguous.
@Caswell Franklyn | April 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM |
I had always wandered about it but not being familiar with the law, I assumed that the framers had factored in that too but if not, then precarious roads lie ahead for some kind of law suit i fear, if someone from the U.S. applies for certain legal positions and is denied it on the grounds of the fact that they practice in the US and not a commonwealth country
I always enjoy listening to legal luminary brains, exchanging, debating, as here on this BU thread, even though I’m ignorant of this discipline! I listen and learn!
Because of the legal content of this thread, I’d like to submit a recent statement Re South African Jurist, Richard Goldstone’s report that demonized Israel.
“Goldstone also acknowledged in the piece (i.e., his recant on his first report to the UN) that Israel’s judiciary met the highest international standards for investigating its own military conduct and has the right, like every other nation, to defend itself against attacks such as those perpetrated by terrorist groups like Hamas.”
“The Goldstone report set a dangerous precedent by rewarding terrorist and denying democratic nations the right to defend themselves against terrorism…that’s another reason it is so critical to repudiate the report.”
Now, terrorist Jihadist from within Gaza, are now doing the same evil thing again, to innocent Israeli civilian terrority, as Kassam and Grad misiles attacks continued with over 100 mortar shells and Kassam rockets fired at Israeli targets, with 50 fired since early Saturday.
And that ignorant Secretary General at the UN, is calling on Israel to cease firing back, because Banki-MOON, is concerned for Palestinian civilian casualities, BUT, he does not say much about the terror inflicted on Jewish Children, mothers and fathers, living in constant fear, and recent slaughter of an entire Israeli family, including a baby by a Jihadist terrorist.
If this is not bag enough, in Egypt, protesters where shot by by Egyptian military forces. Then, during the protest, several thousand people broke away and marched to the Israeli Embassy, where they then threw rocks and stones and attempted to enter the building. They shouted anti-Israel epithets, claiming that Israel was killing “innocent Palestinians” in response to Hamas rocket attacks!
As the Word of God states; “Woe to those who call evil, good, and good evil.”
A couple points of interest coming out of the talk show yesterday:
The new judicial centre has been poorly designed. To do research one has to exit the main building.
Those waiting to hear cases have to mill around on a corridor which was described by Hal Gollop to be like a ‘fish market’.
Cases despite CPR and the best instruction by retired chief justice Simmons are tardy and cases can begin as late as 10AM.
The list of inefficiencies makes a long list. The disheartening thing about the show which had some of our besy legal eagles was that they could offer no significant way forward to resolving the issues!
TO HANTS
Why does SCHOOL have to come into it ?
Who cares where the man went to school AS LONG AS HE GETS THE JOB DONE ?
Allyuh not goin’ stop this school nonsense
I t is beginning to sound STUPID !!!!!!!!
Here is a link to talk show program yesterday, listen if you need to get depressed.
The amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act was gazetted yesterday, we can expect the CJ appointment to be gazetted soon we would imagine.
I taught they would have gazatted them together david. get it over and done with.
The Marston Gibson appointment has been a little bit of a circus hasn’t it?
@BU.David: “The Supreme Court of Judicature Act was gazetted yesterday…
This is a rhetorical question…
Is that (and other) knowledge available for free to anyone interested (other than through BU)?
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/ for context; in both official languages….
to caswell- have you heard through the grapevine when the new chief justice will be sworn in? seems now that there was no real purpose in hastening the amendment to the judicature act since mr oore is acting ad infinitum.
I saw a question being asked in the Saturday’s Nation quering if the hold up has something to do with Mr Gibson having to give up his American citizenship. He will then have to get a tourist visa and stand in long lines like the rest of us. Will he be willing to do so?
BU reported last week that the amendment to the supreme judicature act was gazetted last week.
Ruth
I have not heard through the grapevine or otherwise if or when Mr. Gibson will be sworn in as Chief Justice. I hope it never happens. The whole story surrounding this fiasco reeks to high heaven. I am still of the view that even with the amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, (that were passed in the wee hours of the morning 12:35 a.m.) he still does not qualify to be the Chief Justice.
You should note that both Cecil McCarthy and Jeff Cumberbatch wrote almost opposing views but neither one said that my interpretation is incorrect. Go back and check their reasoning and I am sure that you would agree with me.
Government has handled this matter so badly that it almost amounts to tampering with the independence of the Judiciary. When a judge is appointed, it is a very difficult process to remove him. On the other hand when a judge is acting, all you have to do to remove him is to allow his period of acting to lapse and there he goes. This current situation is worse we have the Chief Justice and another judge acting until further notice, so they can go at any time. The former Administration abolished casual workers and now we have casual judges, what madness! Lets say that either of these two justices are adjudicating a case against the Government or a minister’s friend and the decision is given in favour of the Government or the friend: even though I have the highest respect for these two gentlemen, the perception would there that the judge is not independent and would have given the decision because he wanted to keep the job.
My advice to the Government is to stop playing politics with the Judiciary.
My debating comrades, I am a bajan (born and bred as they say) living the greater portion of my existence in England. I have arrived at your site by accidental adventures. However the debate compels me to join, if you would allow me your indulgence.
If this is truly a Common Law issue then please allow me to provide a third dimension that carries with it relevant implications.
1. The UNITED STATES (not to be confused with The united States of America) or the UNITED KINGDOM (not to be confused with England or United Kingdom) for that matter are not a Common Law jurisdiction since the death of Lincoln and 1869 respectfully. What they do practice is Admiralty. Maritime; statutes and acts. Such are not laws but carries the force of law by a society based upon mutual consent of the governed (see Black’s law Dictionary 3rd ed onwards). Both the above entities functions as corporations and contract is their law. They do not welcome Common Law and there is an ongoing battle to this day for them to do so. To this day all so called government institutions are corporations run for profit (see Dun & Brad street credit ref) that is in the US; supreme courts, county courts, congress, senate, police and army etc are all run as corporations. In the UK the high court, county court, house of lords, house of commons, house of parliament, politicians, county councils, police force and military etc are all corporations in some form or another. These are all sobering facts (see Dun & Bradstreet for ref)
2. There is no ambiguity in Common Law; the law of common-sense. That is in your conduct with your fellow man a) To do no harm. b) Commit no fraud. Hence in every conceivable scenario those two tenets can apply.
Yet so often there are distortions in reference to what is Common Law. You hear individuals discus common law with the use of legal in their sentence to mean the same thing, this is false and an indoctrinate distortion. Legal is legal and Lawful is lawful. there are not the same thing. there are like oil and water. point of fact Law chumps legal every-time. Unless that is, you voluntarily contract outside of it into admiralty maritime (sea Law)
However, many centuries ago some cunning yet clever Wo/Men but of an erroneous nature brought about a language know as legalese and with it craftily tricked us to contract for privileges that were already God given rights. And with it the implication that Remedy of wrong doing is complicated. In Common Law the accuse and alleged victim (innocent until proven guilty remember) is assembled and the evidence is laid in front a jury of peers pending a unanimous verdict or the accused walks free.
On the other hand with admiralty also reference to equity, you are summons (invited) to a court (bank) to settle an account in front a judge/Magistrates/Administration (no jury) for breach of contract (guilty until proven innocent) and to provide remedy by payment or jail or both.
3) As of the 30th of May 2010 and only at such time onwards has there been the return of The Republic for the united States of America which originates as a Common Law jurisdiction (see http://www.therepublicoftheunitedstatesofamerica.org) with original constitution reinstalled. There are now two governments functioning in America; a de facto (Obama) and a de jure (Tim Turner).
As for here in the UK well there were surmountable of evidence of treason committed by individuals (dead and alive) that was presented to 50+ county police force corporations. No surprise that they have violated their peace officer’s oath and have so far done nothing to arrest the treasonous guilty which goes all the way up the channels, even the Queen is suspected. The said crime of attempting to hand over the Common Law Sovereignty to the EU. Many individuals are rising up and saying enough is enough and have claimed their human right to Common Law. They have also identified protected rights with a) in the Magna Carta 1215, which clearly defines that first there was king John then the treaty then parliament then EU. Point of fact the treaty was ratified to last forever and such time there was no parliament so any attempted usurpation of the treaty by statute acts are automatically void. b) Article 61 defines that when royal subjects and governmental subjects of the people enters into actions and conduct of tyranny, then all people can exercise a peaceful protest through Lawful Rebellion (see Lawfulrebellion.org) and this is what is happening. On 07/03/2011, 300 individuals in Berkenhead England, marched peaceful into a court (bank) and arrested a corrupt judge (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f42kH9dVfI&feature=player_embedded#at=228).
On accepting the above as fact then conclusion should be that
a) America between the Lincoln era and May 29th 2011 there was no seeing of Common law in the courts and therefore the candidate Gibson could not have been practising under common Law. I should add that Lincoln’s assassination has never been fully disclosed in text books. However as President of the united States of America he took an un-presidented (wordplay) action which violated the constitution and created a loophole to form a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION (stunning is it not?) via executive order 001 I believe. Up to that fatal day Lincoln was making haste to make right of his wrongs but the true benefactors of this corrupt system see to it that it never happen and the rest as they say is history.
b) In the likely hood of candidate Gibson being aware of the re-instalment of Common Law jurisdiction to the USA, then his tenure would have been just under a year and therefore making his 15yr criteria unattainable.
c) I would argue that it is almost impossible until recently to find an island or country that is Common Law in practice (there is another cunning reason for that and would by invitation provide an explanation) therefore the “playing politics” As Ruth referred to is another smoke and mirrors and the argument of Common Law is mute don’t you think? therefore candidate Gibson under Common Law is no candidate at all. There is much more that should be said but I will become guilty of going of topic.
I am happy to stand corrected but on examination of Barbados and it proclaimed practising of Common Law. On referencing to matters being legal is a clear tell-tail sign that Common Law is not being applied, notwithstanding the term Law being labelled on matters, by politicians; today’s judges and attorneys and misguided laymen which are not laws at all. Point of fact, based upon their own language identified as legalese and renown prescribed Black’s Law dictionary, this corruption of Law is in excusable.
What is crucially important is Common Law cannot be gotten rid of only side stepped. It was granted to Wo/Man by the creator to all declared Sovereign Human Beings of Planet Earth. To exercise the Common Law right as equals, with inalienable rights protect by constitutions but never taken away. (where your rights end mine begins) To take free will responsibility for our actions and to conduct ourselves responsibly (the precautionary principle that Statutes and Acts try to justify doesn’t apply to Common Law; that is you have either committed a crime or you haven’t -no minority report). To not bring unlawful burden to another. To conduct with love and fairness at all times. To exercise the relinquishing of debt every 70yrs also call the jubilee in the bible. To share and enjoy the blessings of planet earth in this stated fashion: Wo/Man under the creator; Government under Wo/Man as to Common Law (of Land) under the creator; Admiralty (of sea) under Common Law.
Take care of yourself and each other!
David: of the Hall Family
Myturn2speak
Don’t you think that you were in England too long. it is affecting the mind
@ Caswell Franklyn
“Don’t you think that you were in England too long. it is affecting the mind”
In what way?
Please explain.
Do you refute the evidence present? Please lay your rebuttal so that I may stand under correction if need for cause.
Of course you can fail adequate retort with an attempted character assassination. However my mind is not the issue, only the facts are!
“The greatest Lies are lies of Omission” George Orwell
“In time of Universal deceipt -telling the Truth becomes a revolutionary act” Goerge Orwell
“When stupidity is considered patriotism it is unsafe to be intelligent” Isaac Asimov
“All Truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer
Comrade Caswell: of the Franklyn family, I believe you are displaying stage 1
Take care of yourself and each other!