|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2014 4:29:48 GMT
On Monday 27th Oct 2014 I'm in front of the Cheltenham Magistrates, 10.50 onwards, for withholding Council Tax for 18 months, from the Cotswold District Council principally because I've public documentary evidence that the UK Elections are systematically defrauded by a Mainstream Party Politicians' Cartel, and their allies, (for the evidence see: www.sandysteel.co.uk ,pages 1 & 2, also the summary on Page 3, Point 1 ), and because of the nearly 4 years of the suppression of my public document evidenced complaints about it, by all of the public agencies who should be responsible; and either by their not acknowledging or facetiously dismissing the complaint:- These public agency suppressors include: 1. The Cotswold District Council's Returning Officer and CEO; (Nigel Adams and David Neudegg); 2. GLOS Police including uniformed at Cirencester; also CID (DI Ian Ginn and DC Simon Shaw), 3. Also The Chief Constable, and Deputy Chief Constable of GLOS via their Force Control Room; (Suzette Davenport and Rod Hansen), 4. Also the two Assistant Chief Constables of GLOS, also via their Force Control Room (Richard Berry and Sally Crook), 4. Also directly the Electoral Commission CEO and Admin Director (Peter Wardle and Andrew Scallan), 5. Also directly Senior BBC Reporter (Chris Brierley), also the OFT, SFO and LGOC, online; 6. Also via the Cabinet Office, the Chief Secretary to the Cabinet; (Sir Jeremy Hayward), with me still not even having received a police crime complain receipt, in nearly 4 years of all these public documentary evidenced crime complaints. Yet meanwhile DI Ian Ginn and DC Simon Ward, have investigated me for months on a vexatious counter-complaint to smear me, and to terrorise me into silence. Well it hasn't entirely silenced me so far, although I am terrorised, like many people are today, by all these people in senior posts clearly acting either criminally negligently or in joint criminal enterprise. Moreover last year the Cheltenham Magistrates Court didn't summons me for non payment, but convicted me in my unwitting absence - so the Council have sent bailiffs round, for the past year. When I pointed out by phone the absence of a court summons, the Cheltenham Magistrates Court staff said they don't send out the Council Tax Non Payment Court Summons anymore, and to write to HM Courts Service for GLOS, so I did, but got no reply. So I wrote to the prosecuting Council, and found out that covertly they now send out the Court's Summonses, indeed they wrote to say that it matters not whether I received the summons only that they sent it. So the prosecution now controls the Court's Summons so it can now covertly control whether the defendant is summonsed to the court, and so is present or absent at their own trial, this also means that the justices/magistrates now covertly don't carry out any prima-facie process regarding Council Tax cases, but still pretend to do so, by letting the Council put the Magistrate Court Clerk's non wet signature onto the Council's still so called Court’s Summons, to hide that it isn't an independent judicial process anymore, but a star chamber process. Furthermore; after such a Magistrates Courts' and Councils' collusive criminally, fraudulently prejudicial both prima-facie and summonsing processes. Then there's these Courts' Criminal Trial Processes where they systematically don't allow the evidence to be recorded either by their own staff or by the public, and so under this cover particularly in Council Tax Cases they then systematically suppress demands for Common Law trials; (i.e. trials by a jury, of our peers), which juries can nullify all statutory laws, including all statutory taxes, and the magistrates concerned then substitute subsidiary Parliamentary Statutory Laws and all judged by themselves, which statutes are criminal frauds too, because they've all been passed by the criminal fraudulent UK Mainstream Party Politicians' Cartel, who systematically fraud the UK's Elections, (as evidenced www.sandysteel.co.uk ) therefore who produce fraudulent statutes; including those imposing all of their taxes of us, and the spending of it in their own interests, including for example covertly increasing their MPS' and Senior Councillors' public incomes by around 10 fold or even more in real terms, since 1950, (for evidence of this criminal UK party political cartel’s price fixing frauds, see page 3, point 5, of my website www.sndysteel.co.uk ), so Council Tax and most other taxes are systematically, without genuine informed public consensus and without genuine informed personal consent, and it is all covered up by the systematic suppression by magistrates of their courts’ records and of peoples rights to jury trials as per section 39 of Magna Carta 2015. So the UK’s Council Tax Magistrates are acting in Joint Criminal Enterprise with the Criminal mainstream UK party politicians, to tax the UK Public without genuine both public consent and personal consent, and they’re doing it for profit, and of course also for the power this brings to them by these extortions on the General Public Still further; A sizable part of the bottom half of UK society, who suffer most, know about these political and magisterial fraud systems where the poor still have no direct public political and lower court justice representation, while the middle class remains generally complacent. Yet if that bottom half had any genuinee direct both democratic representation and lower court justice representation none of these elitist systemic political and legal frauds could be perpetrated. By contrast in the medieval Manorial Courts a broader range of society had direct representation, because there was a jury, so the Lord of the Manor was primus inter-pares (first among equals) in the local court and neither the lord, nor the jurors were paid but it was local civic duty. So it's during modernity that the UK's local court system has been systematically corrupted by the criminal party political and magisterial elites to serve their own elites’ interests, including serving the recent breed of mercenary stipendiary (paid) lawyer magistrates who run today's local law courts for their own profit while maintaining medieval recording practices, and so then covertly frauding and forcing the public not to record these cases either, so their courts' frauds and extortions which are for their own profit and power, also for the criminal party political classes' profit and power, also for these elites’ allied elites profit and power, aren't on any record, except blogs like this one. So I will be demanding compensation for the so far 12 months of unlawful bailiffs' victimisations of me resulting on the magisterial and prosecuting parties covertly colluding to omit to summons me to start with, and so fraudulently convicting me in my absence, and under Statutory Law to which I’ve never given my informed consented, and which is in any case criminally fraudulent too. as it's passed by a party politician cartel that systematically defrauds the UK's Elections, ( see wwwsandysteel.co.uk ) and then their omitting to do anything about any of this, when I wrote and told them of the absences of a summons, except then to give me the HM Court Service's run-around, when it's the Council that actually now covertly controls the Council Tax Court Summonses, thereby the magistrates covertly neglecting any proper prima facie process too, and all the while fraudulently publically misrepresenting that there is a proper independent both prima facie and summonsing process, by making the Council Tax Court Summons still appear to be from the Court, by using the Magistrates Court Clerk's automated signature, when it's really by and from, the Council, who covertly hire both the Magistrates, and the Court for the day, and these hired Magistrates then willingly collude in all these public frauds, likely for the money, as likely they are stipendiary (i.e. paid) magistrates. Sandy Steel
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2014 20:18:04 GMT
Update: I had a phone call on friday afternoon with a Mrs Legg of the Cotswold District Council's Revenues Section, who had received two documents with my reasons for withholding Council Tax in them. She claimed to have read them, but then she asked, why do I think that the UK Government is criminal? So I explained about its systematic frauds of the UK's Elections and some of the war crime, terrorism and extortion consequences, to which she replied 'ah, but you still must pay, your Council Tax'.
It's civil servant functionaries like this, who when faced with the evidence of their Council's, and of the UK Government's systematic criminality, don't deny any of it, yet who are still willingly aiding and abetting the Council and the UK Government, as out of the resulting extorted taxes, that Council and that Government is paying them a sizable income, so who are therefore mercenary criminals themselves; in joint criminal enterprise, in such Governments. Do these criminal mercenary functionaries need the money so much, that they have to behave criminally every working day, like this? These are increasingly the sort of people that our taxes go to, because honest people are all eventually forced out, by such persistently criminal functionaries.
Sandy Steel
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2014 21:44:30 GMT
Update: On Friday morning I had a phone call with a Sarah at HM Court Services GLOS, who supply Cheltenham Magistrates with their 'admin'. She volunteered that with regard to Council Tax that the Cotswold District Council now hires the Magistrates Ct, and Magistrates, for the day, and provides it own 'admin' not the Court Services' admin. which again confirms that the prosecution, rather than the court, is covertly in control of the prima-facie and summonsing process on Council Tax.
So the Summons still purports to be from the Courts, in order to mislead people to believe that their is an independent judicial prima facie and summonsing process before these trials commence - so my point is that this court's and this council's covert collusive frauds even before the trials start are reconfirmed aurally; as I've already got written evidence, of this fraud;
Hence people like me, are either summonsed on no substantive evidence, because the Council knows in my case that I've caught them systematically defrauding the Cotswold's Elections (see my website), or like last year where I was never summonsed, but was convicted in my unwitting absence, so I couldn't defend myself, and all managed covertly by the council, as its summons still purports to be from the magistrates court's clerk, so it still publically appears to be an impartial judicial prima facie and summonsing process; and the courts are colluding in these frauds of an Independent prima-facie and summonsing process, which is obviously with criminal intent, and the criminality is then occurring, and the courts are still ignoring it, indeed they are, at the moment, party in it.
Sandy Steel
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2014 22:29:13 GMT
Update: about The Public not being allowed to record evidence in magistrates courts. These courts aren't 'courts of record' themselves, so what the authorities are doing is to suppress both their staff, and the public to record the case evidence in order that during the trial the magistrates can then supress the Common Law, and fraudulently substitute their more lucrative Statutory Law, without that fraud or any other being able to be properly publically seen to be done. So carrying cameras into court isn't against the Common Law while by contrast the judiciaries rules, and politicians statutes in order to prevent the public recording evidence in magistrates courts are with the intent to fraud the public in court, and so which statutes and court orders against the public filming and recording the evidence in magistrates court are generally intentionally criminal, under the Common Law, and those enforcing it are generally acting criminally.
Update: about The Public not being allowed to record evidence in higher courts. I believe it's still the case that in higher Courts, they similarly supress The Public to record the courts' evidence, and in order to control the Court Transcript themselves. I believe they still use extremely expensive Court Stenographers and sell the transcripts at £100's per hour, rather than using video or audio, with transcript software, at less than £5 per hour, so last time I checked the price for just one case transcript was in the hundreds of £ per hour to obtain, so that justice is not being properly publically seen to be done in almost all justice cases except for the very wealthy, and therefore systematically it isn't proper public justice, but instead whatever the Queens Council and the Judge want it to be. This banning of the public to record while providing wholly publically unsatisfactory records themselves is a systematically criminal practice. Only a load of hucksters, sadists and sociopaths, would maintain this criminal practice.
By contrast; for decades, the police when they interview anyone, they use cheap effective audio recording machines and supply copies - while there are still far too many corrupt police, their witness record practices are incomparably less corrupt than the UK Courts are, and as a result there is plenty of excellent witness police work. I couldn't say that about the UK Courts. From what I've seen the UK Courts are still largly hole in the wall affairs, full of prejudicial and arbitrary decision making and just because the court case records aren't readily publically accessible, and so UK Court Room Justice is often incredibly, deleterious to public and police morals. The UK Courts need a vast overhaul, as almost everything they think and do is archaic and not fit for purpose and or institutionally and or individually corrupt. This is the behind arras, and upon sofa nether World that Tony and Cheerie crawled out from - need I say any more about how putridly publically unaccountable it is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 28, 2014 11:32:36 GMT
Update: Smile, No Klink.
Aled has kindly published about my Council Tax Withhold Case, Online in the GLOS ECHO: www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Poll-Tax-protestor-dismisses-case-row-camera/story-23626351-detail/story.html and it’s ok Smile; although I see that after I left the court, the magistrates and prosecutor then sneaked back in, and convicted me in my unwitting absence, so not unlike last year, where they knowingly never summons me at all, but never the less convicted me, Sarcastic smile, but I think that means that they still can’t enter my property, without my consent, but just again send council bailiffs; at the rate payers’ expense to buzz me at the door, so I think, just a permanent nuisance to discourage the bourgeoisie from following suit, and so far they have been illegally buzzing at me like this with council bailiffs, for a year. Of course I’m beginning to get used to ignoring such bailiffs: lurking, pouncing, bullying, banging and rattling outside, but it was more harrowing for the first 18 months, when i didn’t know their MO. If you go back to my website: www.sandysteel.co.uk and click on UK/Global Fraud, you'll find my:- “28 Theses Disputing the Legality and Ethicacy of Taxes Levied by Today’s Party Political Class”. Please post any additional reasons that occur to you here?  Their criminally fraudulent: summonsing, trials, convictions and Council bailiffs is all also against article 39 of Magna Carta 2015 as its 'victimisation' and I will be seek compensation against the Cllrs, Prosecutors, Magistrates and MPs involved personally and for £12 million because this governmental systematic court frauds and extortion is victimisation and it does kill men also women with stress, and the public elites having been doing such in some cases since 1215 but exponentially more so since the so called Enlightenment, also it's only major claims against those personally involved that will bring it home to them. Sandy Steel
|
|
|
|
Post by kentfreedommovement on Oct 29, 2014 0:32:47 GMT
Hi Sandy.
I have sent you a message regarding your Court case plus other matters.
I have just finished reading your UK/Global Fraud States 28 point theses and couldn't agree more.
Hopefully be in contact soon to discuss some idea's and strategies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nazrudin on Oct 29, 2014 8:18:24 GMT
Hi Sandy, well done and thank you for all your hard work and courage in dealing with corruption. I will be following your progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nazrudin on Oct 29, 2014 8:21:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2014 13:25:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2014 13:48:26 GMT
Hi Sandy. I have sent you a message regarding your Court case plus other matters. I have just finished reading your UK/Global Fraud States 28 point theses and couldn't agree more. Hopefully be in contact soon to discuss some idea's and strategies. Welcome: thanks for your V encouraging words about The 28 Theses why we shouldn't pay taxes to the present UK Party Political Classes: which, as you know, is on the UK/Global Fraud page of my website: www.sandysteel.co.uk I consider it work in progress - last night, I polished up point 1, & points 5 to 9. I haven't seen your private message yet. I V much look forward to ideas/strategy contact with the KFM and you. Sandy |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 29, 2014 21:13:21 GMT
|
|
parki
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by parki on Oct 30, 2014 21:38:05 GMT
Well done on standing up for yourself and others with all the info .I totally agree with what you have said and done about time someone showed these corrupt bodies what they are.Be following your progress and you've got my support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 1:19:55 GMT
Welcome, thank you very much for your support. On the UK/Global Fraud page at www.sandysteel.co.uk there are 72 links, all pointing an evidential finger at the US, UK, Israeli, Saudi and Pakistani GOVS, as being systematically, criminally malignant constructs; i.e. criminal governments, so please copy and paste that whole page with its 72 link' library, then download any key links' to your own computer also to memory sticks because Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are controlled and they and their criminal associates and criminal controllers clearly intend to control the internet content in the UK and EU, as it is controlled in China. Covertly it will be them and particularly their controllers top priority to take down all websites, including this one, that do both explain and evidence these home truths to the UK Public concerning the UK Government being a criminal construct, and what we can do about it, including lawfully withholding tax until we get redress, and meanwhile resorting to the Common Law i.e. demanding Jury Trials by our peers, which is our right under Section 39 of Magna Carta 1215, and I believe under the Bill of Rights 1688 too, which juries can nullify both the criminal UK GOV'S criminal Statutory Laws and the systemically criminal UK Magisterial Justices' court orders, the latter whom who are currently systematically criminally supressing appeals for Common Law Trials and imposing Statutory Law themselves, which UK Magistrates therefore are in Joint Criminal Enterprise with the criminal UK Government. We are allowed to use proportionate action under the Common Law and under Statutory Law too, so if these criminal party politicians and criminal magistrates give notice and seize our assets then we can give notice and seize their personal assets, to the tune of say 10,000 times more, in order proportionately to prevent their systematic criminality to us. So, two can play the seizure game, but the difference is that we will be doing it legitimately under Common Law and they will be doing it criminally under Statutory Law which is subsidiary to The Common Law and which can only be applied with our consent, because we always have the right to appeal to a jury to nullify their parliamentary statutes and the court orders Basically they are currently systematic criminal BS, and like in the play ground, the only way to confront BS bullies is to stand up and give it them back, always keeping in mind not to be gratuitously vengeful, but to act proportionately to the bullying, and so if victory is ever won to be clement although mindful of making sure that they can never do it again - i.e. minimum reasonable force throughout, in order to obtain legitimacy and democracy in the UK i.e. the right to jury trials, and the right to a parliament that isn't just full of wealthy criminal party politicians but is genuinely proportionally representative of the tax base in this country i.e. wealthy, middle and low incomed proportionately represented. 'No taxation without Representation' being the obvious slogan of the UK's Middle and Low Incomed who once again have no direct representation in the House of Commons, Parliament and Justice because the UK MPs for example have stealthily racked up their public: pay, expenses and pensions by about 10 fold in real terms since 1950 making themselves once again an entirely plutocratic government, so not remotely a democratic government as they still fraudulently claim themselves to be, and the UK magistrates are colluding and in joint criminal enterprise by their systematically supressing of our rights to trials by juries, as you can see has happened to me at Cheltenham Magistrates Ct if you read the thread above. Hope that summary of the present situation and what lawful rebellion entails, makes sense? Cheers Sandy Steel Ps I have lots of hope for the future, if we can just get these systematic UK Party Political and UK Magisterial fraudster classes of our backs, by acting democratically and legally ourselves, so not like them at all, but us seeking common consensus and ultimately personal consent concerning taxation and spending, via generally only funding publically representative both political bodies, and legal bodies; in other words restoring the principle of primus (the elite person) inter-pares (among equals) e.g. the justice acting in assent with a jury, and the political executive acting in assent with a representative assembly of tax payers, and not just in assent with assemblies of wealthy and criminal fraudulent party political tax payer, as is the present case in the UK. PPS The above is a first draft of my declaration of intent, and i'll come back and clean it up, but it's enough to explain the issues, I hope?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Nov 3, 2014 14:35:01 GMT
Statutes
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.
- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).
- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Nov 3, 2014 14:49:04 GMT
Law...
- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personnel, magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.
|
|
