Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Best not to rise to the bait with Spen. If there's something of substance to debate fine but otherwise no.

As ever Bromponaut, you are a wise counsel. I'll block him forthwith.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your difficulty is that because you have failed, despite considerable effort, to discover my identity you conclude that I can not exist. I

'Monkers has died. I'm going to post on their account. Prove that I don't exist'.

There is no new identity to discover. You're Monica/Monkers. Several of us on here have joined the dots and know who you are.
At least the trans identifying niece isn't so much of a stretch. Must be a relief only having to pretend about the lawyer bit.

 

[monkers]

'Monkers has died. I'm going to post on their account. Prove that I don't exist'.

There is no new identity to discover. You're Monica/Monkers. Several of us on here have joined the dots and know who you are.
At least the trans identifying niece isn't so much of a stretch. Must be a relief only having to pretend about the lawyer bit.

There is no new identity for you to discover precisely because I know how sinister you and other people like you are. There is no on-line trace of me for you to find. I don't even have a British passport. I wasn't born in the UK. I don't live in the UK. I don't pay tax in the UK. I don't vote in the UK. There is no photograph of me uploaded to the internet anywhere. I'm happy for you to waste your life looking.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The lawyer niece is a fake persona created by Monkers. You're Monkers. You're right that there's nothing more to discover than that.
I wouldn't waste my time looking for info on imaginary creations.

 

[monkers]

You're a fake persona created by Monkers. You're right that there's nothing more to discover than that.

I am literary laughing out loud. It's killing you that there's a trans woman under you nose, getting under your skin, and your efforts to investigate have led you nowhere. If you think you can put pressure on me to reveal myself, you are very mistaken.

 

[CXRAndy]

If you have a GRC then you have a birth certificate showing you as female.

Or am I missing something.

Biology rules

 

[spen666]

To state this in the ordinary vernacular - you are talking out of your arse.

Your difficulty is that because you have failed, despite considerable effort, to discover my identity you conclude that I can not exist. I have protected my identity precisely because I know that people like you exist, and because I know what nuisance people like you can cause to trans people just trying to live a peaceful life.

But so you know, there are no social media or networking accounts opened by me in either my own name or any assumed name.

I have continued posting on this account, not an account opened by me. I have been very honest about that, no dishonesty involved. If the site owner chooses to close the account - so be it.

I have no interest in your identity & have never made any attempt to find who you are

Why do you persist in lying and making up nonsense claims.

I have no idea what or where or how you access social media.


Again, I invite to to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

Let's remember who trawled unrelated Internet forums 7 years old to try to discredit me?

 

[spen666]

It wasn't vague, there was a discussion mostly between Aurora and Classic in relation to the case of a trans woman prisoner in the RofI.

Well of course there is nothing in UK statute, what did you expect? You really wasted your time looking for it? Good grief.

As explained the term is office speak in Strasbourg since the legal status of the person is twofold, the status under domestic legislation and the status as a citizen under international law. It's just informal shorthand that rolls them together. It really isn't a difficult concept.

As usual you started some petty argument on a point of pedantry, and then failed to hold your end up.

Heck you even failed to give the correct legal identity of the country where you live.

I'm bored with you now, I think it time to put you on block.

More rewriting of history?

You started posting about "sovereign status" and implying it a legal term in UK. I have merely asked you to back this up as no Legal Database or AI references it.

Another false claim by you?

No amount of lies or insults gets away from the fact you cannot back up your repeated false claims

 

[monkers]

Wasting your time. You'll need to find a new target.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I am literary laughing out loud. It's killing you that there's a trans woman under you nose, getting under your skin, and your efforts to investigate have led you nowhere. If you think you can put pressure on me to reveal myself, you are very mistaken.

You've been a trans identifying man under our noses on CC since 2020. Nobody is investigating your imaginary niece persona, Monica. It's imaginary.

 

[monkers]

You've been a trans identifying man under our noses on CC since 2020. Nobody is investigating your imaginary niece persona, Monica. It's imaginary.

I'm still laughing because after I told you I knew Monica had a fb account, you produced three references to her saying she had a fb account as if that was some kind of gotcha.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm still laughing because after I told you I knew Monica had a fb account, you produced three references to her saying she had a fb account as if that was some kind of gotcha.

No, you said the Green Party had an account they ran under the Monica C name. That's clearly not what all the mentions of fb on here were about though; 'Monkers' (ie you) talked about posts and replies Monkers had made on fb, having fb friends etc., not a party run page.

Again though, you've just further confirmed who 'Monkers' is because otherwise the Green Party wouldn't be making a page for a private individual. You fibbed again but didn't think it through.


You should just give it up at this point.
Stop pretending to be a lawyer and just post your views like everybody else, without pretending they carry any more authority than anybody else's. That's what the issue is. I don't care about your ridiculous back story.

 

[spen666]

Interesting Response from co-pilot to the question

is the term "sovereign status" used in any ECtHR judgement in relation to an individual person?

Accepting that AI is not infallible

Here’s what I found after checking both public ECtHR‑related sources :
Your question:
Is the term “sovereign status” used in any ECtHR judgment in relation to an individual person?
How I checked:

• Searched the public web for instances of “sovereign status” appearing in ECtHR judgments, commentary, or case summaries. [echrcaselaw.com], [ejiltalk.org]
• Searched across your personal files, emails, meetings, and people data for any material referencing “sovereign status.” [Concession...ement 2016 | PDF]

What the data shows:
Across both public and personal sources:

• No ECtHR judgment located uses the term “sovereign status” to describe or evaluate an individual person.
  • The term sovereignty and territorial status is certainly discussed in inter‑State cases (notably Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)), but exclusively in relation to territory and State authority, not private individuals. [ejiltalk.org]
  • The term does not appear in the reviewed summaries of recent judgments involving individuals (e.g., M.B. v. France; Cimpaka Kapeta v. Belgium) and there is no indication that the Court has ever attributed “sovereign status” to a natural person in any legal sense. [echrcaselaw.com]
• Your personal documents contain no reference to the term at all. They are unrelated to ECtHR jurisprudence. [Concession...ement 2016 | PDF]

Conclusion:
Based on all available sources, there is no evidence that the ECtHR has ever used the term “sovereign status” in relation to an individual person in any judgment.

Then I asked co-pilot

is the term "sovereign status" used in any ECtHR proceedings in relation to an individual person?

to establish if the term is used elsewhere in proceedings other than a judgement

Your question:
“Is the term ‘sovereign status’ used in any ECtHR proceedings in relation to an individual person?”
How I approached this:

• I ran a web search specifically for the phrase “sovereign status” in the context of ECtHR proceedings involving individual applicants. [echrcaselaw.com], [ejiltalk.org], [justsecurity.org], [hudoc.echr.coe.int], [academic.oup.com], [resources.osce.org]

Findings​

Across all sources checked:

• No ECtHR proceeding—judgment, decision, or admissibility review—uses the term “sovereign status” to describe or refer to an individual person.
  The search results include cases like M.B. v. France (an individual-application case) and general analyses of ECtHR practice, but none involve the term in question. [echrcaselaw.com]
• Where the ECtHR deals with “sovereignty,” it relates exclusively to:
  • State sovereignty,
  • territorial status,
  • ratione loci/personae issues, or
  • inter‑State proceedings involving disputes over sovereign control (e.g., Georgia v. Russia, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)).
    These contexts do not involve attributing sovereign qualities or “sovereign status” to private individuals. [ejiltalk.org], [justsecurity.org]

Conclusion​

Based on available public and personal sources, the ECtHR has never used the term “sovereign status” in relation to an individual person in any proceedings. The phrase does not appear in case law, procedural decisions, or commentary describing individual applicants’ legal positions.

So, no reference to "sovereign status" in relation to an individual in any judgement, case law, procedural decisions or commentary in the ECtHR.

 

[monkers]

Monica was open about who she was. She wasn't hiding anything. She was a well known local figure and people would always come up to her in the street for a hug and a chat. It would make no sense for me to try to retrospectively hide her identity.

She talked on here about where she lived, the work she had done, the charity she supported, the political party she worked with. You said that you've catalogued her previous avatars (creepy!) including a photograph of herself. That doesn't surprise that she put a photograph of herself here - though I don't remember seeing it.

But you just hate not knowing who I am. I have no trust in you to disclose any snippet of information beyond what I've said - and I don't break my own rules. I'm cautious and with good reason.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I have no interest in your identity & have never made any attempt to find who you are

Why do you persist in lying and making up nonsense claims.

I have no idea what or where or how you access social media.


Again, I invite to to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

Let's remember who trawled unrelated Internet forums 7 years old to try to discredit me?

She was replying to AS.

Muppet.