October 02, 2010

Meet Rainstorm

He knows his stuff.

It's about time you knew it too.

Share this with every sentient being you come across.

It is a two-parter.

Tip of the beret to Defender for the find. Ta!



monster said...

so if something becomes case law is that then a law that we are all bound by, or is that an Act also - even though it is called a Law?

I thought that we were all bound by laws through case law, which is how laws develop?

FireballXL5 said...

A bit rambling but all credit for a young un "getting it". It is of course the younger generation, who have been brainwashed the most, that we need alongside us if we are to stand a chance of turning the tide.

I also thought case law was intertwined with common law and only statute was "piled on top".

Captain Ranty said...


I don't think he planned it. It looks spontaneous, which would explain the rambling. But it is still interesting and I think he has a firm grasp. And yes, I think he is appealing to a group that I (for one) miss. To many young 'uns I must seem like a ranting old fart.


(Incidentally, in at least one version of Blacks Law Dictionary, human beings are defined as monsters. In another, imbeciles, and in most, we are defined as children).

Fireball has it I think. Common law is the bedrock. Case law builds on that, and we end up, sometimes, with statutes. The statutes seem to detail the "crime" and acts as a guide for the jury. Please note that it is not a judges job to interpret the law: the jury decides if an Act is relevant in the case they are hearing.


FireballXL5 said...

I thought the main role of a judge was to interpret the law (guide the lay person/jury)??

Do we still have the right to demand trial by twelve good men and true?? Rather than just being turned over by some old fart sat in the big chair?

For instance if your HMRC caper ends up in court, could you demand trial by jury? Although I understand the tactic with our common law methods is to stay in honour and remove controversy (nothing to rule on) thereby avoiding the neccessity of court.

Captain Ranty said...


He can guide only. If he interprets, he is practising law from the bench. He is not allowed to do that.

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the answer is no. Since 1 December 2009 we are subject to the Napoleonic Code, which says that we are guilty until proven innocent. I believe that only 52 courts in the UK allow jury trials, but that number is set to be reduced, eventually, to nil.

In my case, the disputed amount is small, but a win for me would have massive ramifications. I do not believe that the sheriff at my local court has jurisdiction in this matter, and he/she may be forced to refer my case to a higher court. I will be asking for a jury. (15 on a jury up here). My job is not to convince the judge that I am right, it is for me to convince those 15 good men and true.

Your final point is spot on. In my case with HMRC I have never refused to pay. There is no controversy. I have always offered conditional payment.


FireballXL5 said...

"According to the Lisbon Treaty, the answer is no. Since 1 December 2009 we are subject to the Napoleonic Code, which says that we are guilty until proven innocent. "

If there was only one issue to rebel on that alone should be it. I didn't realise it had actually come to pass in our once fair land. How on earth did we allow such a fundamental right to be stolen from us???

God help us.

And I say that as an athiest :-(

Captain Ranty said...


We gave away a great deal.



has been the most read piece I have ever written. Up to fifty people a week still come to read it, almost a year after it was written.


defender said...

Fireball, if you read to the end of this link, you will understand a lot more

Deconstructing Western Christian Civilization


defender said...

I tried opening the link I offered and its wank.
Try this