Common law Vs Act of the Dáil

Hello,

First off, I think this is my first time posting here, so I hope I'm not out of my depth!

I was talking to a friend of mine that has told me something baffling. If you are caught growing cannabis, (for example - it's basically any offence that is NOT against a person) it would not be an infringement of common law, but would be going against an act of the dail (misuse of drugs act), therefore if prosecuted for such an offense you would be under no obligation to recognise the authority of the court, and they could not legally prosecute you unless you gave consent.

I'm calling shenanigans on this and hope you legal people can debunk his theory. Surely an act that the Dail passes has to be law that can be acted on by a judge?

Wolfe Tone

freeman sh!te

Talking through his hole, involves you telling the court you don't recognize its authority, doesn't go down too well.

Anyway, while its interesting to hear this freeman stuff it only ever works when people get so fed up dealing with the crap they just leave you alone. Sometimes it snowballs a minor legal issue into something bigger.

Your friend is talking out of his arse.

Freeman nonsense. Ignore it.

MagicSean

Freemen like to rely on the Constitution for their rights but tend to ignore everything else in it.

cursai

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

Hello,

First off, I think this is my first time posting here, so I hope I'm not out of my depth!

I was talking to a friend of mine that has told me something baffling. If you are caught growing cannabis, (for example - it's basically any offence that is NOT against a person) it would not be an infringement of common law, but would be going against an act of the dail (misuse of drugs act), therefore if prosecuted for such an offense you would be under no obligation to recognise the authority of the court, and they could not legally prosecute you unless you gave consent.

I'm calling shenanigans on this and hope you legal people can debunk his theory. Surely an act that the Dail passes has to be law that can be acted on by a judge?

I think this is a common misconception lately due to a number of people trying to dogs parking tickets and other offences in Britain. The defence is based on Magna carts law created by Henry 2 in the middle ages wherein the kings laws didn't apply to commoners.
As far as I am aware it doesn't apply in Ireland and its use for defence in England hasn't been completely successful either.
There was a story in the Irish times lately wherein a man tried to use the defence but was convicted.

MagicSean

You're best bet is just to nod and agree and tell him he's very smart and interesting. Arguing with the delusional doesn't work very well.

monkeypants

You might not recognise the court, but you'll find that the court generally has no difficulty in recognising you.

Robbo

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

I'm calling shenanigans on this and hope you legal people can debunk his theory. Surely an act that the Dail passes has to be law that can be acted on by a judge?

It is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Lalalalala can't convict me lalalala".

It's a loose structure of Internet based hokum and extreme libertarianism that is generally used for for either trying to weasel out of motoring offences or growing dope. It gains traction among those who: (i) spend far too much time on the internet, (ii) believe everything they read on the internet, (iii) usually have a joint in the hand whilst doing so and (iv) are recently at a loose end through unemployment.

Generally, when it comes up here, I feel like the Bad Vicar sketch from Mitchell & Webb:

Aren't you all entitled, to your half-assed musings on the divine? You've thought about eternity for twenty-five minutes and think you've come to some interesting conclusions? Well let me tell you I stand with two thousand years of darkness and bafflement and hunger behind me. My kind have harvested the souls of a million peasants and I couldn't give a ha’penny jizz for your internet assembled philosophy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4

coylemj

For a long time in the 1970s the Provisional IRA didn't recognise the legitimacy of the 26 county state so when hauled up before the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, their tactic when asked to plead guilty or not guilty was to state that they didn't recognise the court. They soon got sense when the result was a long jail sentence in Portlaoise.

BrianD

There was somebody leaving business cards with this sort of stuff on it on the tables down at the Electric Picnic.

coylemj

BrianD wrote: »

There was somebody leaving business cards with this sort of stuff on it on the tables down at the Electric Picnic.

If they had the courage of their convictions, one of them would light up a joint and puff the smoke into a Garda's face but no, they are so convinced of the righteousness of their case that they're prepared to have it put to the test by complete strangers naive enough to swallow their barmy theory.

Victor

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

If you are caught growing cannabis,

Legal advice from a stoner? Hmmmm...

Of course, the state could refuse to recognise him and imprison him for eternity or just remove any benefit he receives from the state.

stock>

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

Hello,



I was talking to a friend of mine that has told me something baffling. If you are caught growing cannabis, (for example - it's basically any offence that is NOT against a person) it would not be an infringement of common law, but would be going against an act of the dail (misuse of drugs act), therefore if prosecuted for such an offense you would be under no obligation to recognise the authority of the court, and they could not legally prosecute you unless you gave consent.

I'm calling shenanigans on this and hope you legal people can debunk his theory. Surely an act that the Dail passes has to be law that can be acted on by a judge?

To my limited legal knowledge your acquaintance has his head shoved where the sun does not shine dribbling excrement.

There are to types of law. common law loosely put civil law usually based on precedence, you fall , you claim, you are wronged you claim.You against another person company or state........... also called tort law (law of mistakes)
Statutory is the state against you. Laws are put in place by the government,courts or it agents eg county councils etc. these Statutory law place a duty on you, you must not kill, your boss must protect you at work these are statutory duties placed on the individual where the breach of them is a criminal offence ......................