Subject: Even more "Derby"
From: Veronica
Date: 26/1/14 8:17 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Magna Carta 1215 TREATY extracts:

[30] No sheriff, or bailiff of ours, or anyone else shall take the horses or carts of any free man for transport work save with the agreement of that freeman.

[38] In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own un-supported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

[45] We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

PLUS ... Articles 20, 52, 55 .... and of course, dear old 61!

30 (above): No sheriff, or bailiff of ours, or anyone else shall take the horses or carts of any free man for transport work save with the agreement of that freeman.

Did you agree to let them impound your car? (A car is still measured in horse-power). No, you didn't agree? Then they can't seize it, can they?

38 (above): In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own un-supported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

So ... if one 'names the driver' ... that 'his own un-supported statement' ... isn't it?

Where are the 'credible witnesses' to this 'own un-supported statement'?

Where is the NECESSARY 'credible witness' that says: "Yes, I agree, I saw that person driving. I corroborate that statement"?

They want to discuss "rules"? Oh yea ... lets discuss rules!

They so much "want to get us"  ... they so much "want to keep us in line" ... they ALWAYS fall over themselves, don't they?

If you won't name the Driver, then it's up to £1,000 fine.

Errr ... but YOU ... simply 'naming the Driver' ... is UNCORROBORATED.

THE LAW ... demands that only CORROBORATED testimony constitutes EVIDENCE (of any "guilt").

It's a case of "Oh ... whoops ... forgot that bit!"

Well, personally, I think it's about time they were reminded.

They want to discuss "rules"? Oh, fuck me ... yes indeedy!

Even if a Speed Camera can be considered to 'corroborate the speed' ... or even 'corroborate the vehicle' ... it doesn't, necessarily, 'corroborate the individual behind the steering wheel' ... in most cases, because it takes a picture of the rear number-plate.

And, personally, I think it's about time they were reminded.

Statutes fall into two categories:

1. They either support The Common Law ... and are thus totally IRRELEVANT

OR

2. They are contrary to The Common Law ... and are thus null & void ... and are thus totally IRRELEVANT.

Just as I wrote in my book. ALL Statutes are IRRELEVANT.

"Legal" = Pure Bollox.

They 'fall over themselves' to create Legals. They 'fall over themselves', therefore, to create bollox. (And get paid handsomely for doing it! Why, on Earth, would anyone VOTE for that? Anyone in their right mind?)

Vxxx