Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

We welcome all new members and visitors to the Forum, please introduce yourself here, point to your own website/blog or point to articles of interest that you have created.

Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:40 pm


This is a confused cry for help! :thinks:

I got ‘pinched’ for speeding on camera a few months back. Soon the police started threatening criminal charges if I did not reveal who was the driver of my vehicle at the time of their ‘evidence’, In response, I sent Veronica’s wonderful series of template letters, modified slightly to suit my ‘case’ in reply. First off, the police ignored them and continued to waffle on about Statutes and Road Traffic Acts, etc. and kept on threatening criminal charges. In response, I sent Notices of Unresponsive Reply but again they didn’t address the common law issues I raised so I replied with more Notices of Unresponsive Reply. I also invoiced them for having to write to them as they had tacitly agreed by their silence in respect of my declared fee charges. Without referring to all the correspondence, I think they currently owe me £600.

Nevertheless, the charges were finally handed over to the Magistrates’ Court. When I received their threats, I sent another set of the template letters addressed to the Clerk of the Court, followed by the expected notices of ‘Unresponsive Reply’. I sent invoices to them too when they continued their threats. The replies I received were in the form of unsigned ‘legal’ warnings with just a printed name announcing itself as Clerk of the Justices. I think they also now owe me £200. They finally threatened to put the case in the hands of a different Magistrates’ Court and warned that if I didn’t turn up when summoned that I would be tried and sentenced in my absence.

I replied to that letter with the brilliant template telling them that I didn’t want to do business with them because they were listed in Dun & Bradstreet as a company with shareholders that was actively trading for profit. I even included a link to the D&B website showing the listing on their site.

I also sent the same template in response to the latest Magistrates threats again addressed to the Clerk of the Court. It told them that I wouldn’t be turning up as they had invited me to but I would consider servicing the Order for a fee of £150 above and beyond any figure they ordered me to pay. I didn’t turn up as the template had firmly informed them in the lovely amused, finger-wagging style of Veronica’s letters to those who are ignorant of the law. That’ll provoke 'em, I thought.

My heart was in my mouth though because I didn’t know what they would do next. I suspected that they may well ‘sentence’ me in my absence and guess what? They did! I got a £700 fine and in the event of failure to pay they said they will attach my earnings, my pension or any other income I may have. Also my straw man’s driver’s licence is ordered to display six penalty points. Again, this notification had the same name printed on it, which again pronounced itself the Clerk of the Justices. Hmm. Very odd, I thought. On the one hand I was laughing to myself because I thought they had now trapped themselves and were provably in breach of the laws of this country that the courts are sworn to uphold.

Then it sank in that I was now somehow going to have to follow through to pursue them for the fees I had charged but worse, I would now need to pursue them through the courts (or however it is done) to bring them to book and force them to fulfill the commercial liability to me they had so arrogantly and dismissively created…

In other words, what do I do now? The templates hadn’t caused them to back off under the common law and I have no idea how I’m supposed to go after them. I haven't got to this important stage in my studies and I have little time to decide on how to deal with this. Have I proceeded too arrogantly in my enthusiasm to rebel, do you think?

The ideas that have come to me so far is: a) invoice the Clerk for the Justices for the £700 fine plus my fee of £150 in cash and only then will I service their order. b) Tell them I shall contact the DVLA with the proof that the Court had acted unlawfully and to demand that they do not allow themselves to become an accessory to this unlawful action on pain of…? c) I could also inform the Court that their Order is void under the law and is without the signature of the Magistrate. I could also inquire whether the Magistrate was on his oath and demand to see a copy of it. d) I could accuse them of harassment and report them (how? and to who? I mean, the police are already consciously in breach of their duty. They were also the initiators of the Court action and the Order and as things stand, are equally culpable).

I’ve been fighting to be a Freeman for some time now and the templates have worked well so far. Although I have put in several hundred pounds worth of invoices, none have so far been paid. All just ignored. Can I ask if anyone has any experience of this type of abuse of the law and what they would do about it? I realise that the Court probably thinks they have called my bluff and may be laughing up their sleeves, believing there is nothing I can do about their antics. Admittedly, I don’t have much in the way of resources in terms of paying for a solicitor and suing for compensation and damages and harassment and whatever else but I really want to have a go back at them. I would like to get the money they owe me and publicly overturn this so-called ‘Magistrates’ judgment and so on – but how? That is the question.

Has anybody got any advice or knowledge they can share on this please? I’ll be tremendously grateful. I’ve got about a fortnight left to make my response and any and all views would be welcome. Maybe we can all learn from this? I certainly hope I can. Maybe I’ve done something wrong. Can anyone comment on that possibility too please?

Might a Private Prosecution be the answer?

I look forward to hearing your views.

My love and thanks in anticipation
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby nameless » Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:33 am

Hello eileen

This is a very common story, and one that takes a lot of courage to see through as you have done. No doubt, others on this forum will suggest what you can do, and one of those things may be serving a Commercial Lien on them, in which you can list your invoices/statements in the ledgering. Unfortunately, if you don't know much about this process, you probably don't have enough time to learn. It is very difficult to get anyone to cough up without getting the final doc stamped by a judge, who is not likely to go against his own. Perhaps the only satisfaction of doing a lien is that their credit rating could be harmed when you lodge a lien in the public. These liens are effective even if they ignore them, but they do take time for the effects of them to filter through.

You could do a Conditional Acceptance stating you will be happy to 'pay' provided they supply the evidence that they are acting lawfully and prove their accusations that you were doing commerce in your private conveyance. The word 'traffic' is another word for 'commercial activity'; hence the Road Traffic Act applies only to those doing commerce on the highways, not to people travelling privately.

Another approach you may like to try is to appeal their decision. Use your own paper, not their forms. This appeal can be based on your demand for a trial by jury, as is your right under Magna Charta 1215 and The Declaration of Rights 1688 (not the Bill of Rights 1689). Whilst an appeal is going through, all further processes should be frozen. If they refuse to accept your appeal, (which they can't, but probably will try), you can take it to International Arbitration and give the court notice to that effect. To my knowledge, this process is still in its infancy, and I know that one or two are doing a trial run.

Anything we can do to give these criminals a hard time is worth doing.

Please let us know what you decide to do.
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby pitano1 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:38 pm

hi eileen.
well done `for not rolling over. :yes:

this link may be of help.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 1165
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:35 pm

Thanks for your interest and comments. Much appreciated. I've only got a couple of days to get my response off and here is what I am considering. Any and all comments would be gratefully received.

Notice of Void Order


Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.
Regarding Reference: **************, your ‘Order’ dated ***** September, 2012.

I am in receipt of your ‘Order’ dated *** September, 2012. Said correspondence was unresponsive to my previous good faith Offer, and is hereby ignored as insubstantial, without dishonour.

In addition, the ‘Order’ you sent me is unsigned; showing only your printed name, styling yourself as Justices’ Clerk. It reveals a gross ignorance of the law if you believe that a Justices’ Clerk can make and serve any lawful order. A lawful Court Order has to be signed by a Magistrate but even so, the lawful validity of any alleged ‘Court’ has to be established first. At this point it is perfectly evident that due process has been denied by moving straight to judgment - apparently by you! As already established by previous Notices (the legitimate matters I raised remain without response and completely disregarded), the said ‘Court’ has no jurisdiction in the matter and so you have issued a Void Order. Being Void the Order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [1921], it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the court (it is a figment and nothing real). Therefore, the defendant does not commit an offense if he ignores the void convictions and their related orders for enforcement in the present case.

However, in the spirit of Christian forgiveness, I shall attempt to deal with the matter amicably and give another opportunity to establish the validity of your Court and your judgment. I therefore, require the name of the Magistrate (if there was one) and whether s/he was trying the matter (in my absence) under his/her solemn Magistrates Oath (please see the attachment in respect of this). Failing to provide this information will reveal conclusively that your ‘Court’ is in reality a Star Chamber, i.e., an unlawful court of expediency; a kangaroo court; in other words, a complete sham.

If you refuse to provide this information, you will be digging an even deeper hole and condemning yourself further. In the event of a deliberate failure in this, I demand that your ‘Judgment’ be set aside and a lawful trial by a Court de Jure to be instituted. You cannot refuse this. It is the law. Further, you cannot convict me of a crime without a jury of my peers making a judgment by verdict. In the event of your refusal to agree this, I demand to proceed to a Court de Jure now.

Furthermore, if you fail to give satisfaction on this, I shall pursue a Judicial Review. A higher court will be well versed in the matters of Common Law of which you seem so woefully unaware. Please also let me have the details of how to institute those proceedings.

I have also received a Notice of Endorsement of Licence also issued by you and a Further steps Notice from ******** ********. Please notify them to hold off until further actions are being taken by me are completed. Otherwise you will be swiftly entering the realms of harassment. As you may (or may not) know, harassment is a criminal offence brought against individuals and is punishable by fines or imprisonment or both. You may also be interested to know that since the United Nations War Crimes Commissions in Nuremburg and other cities after World War II, during the trials of captured Nazis, it was established that ‘following orders’ was not a defence excusing torture and other war crimes that any normal person would realize was grossly criminal. Similarly with harassment; ‘following orders’ or ‘just doing my job’ is not an allowable defence excusing harassment in Western Europe to this day.

Finally, in accordance with the Fee Schedule contained in my letter of ***** September, 2012, coupled with the fact that you have not sent:

(i) Proof to substantiate any LAWFUL obligation I may have toward your Company's Orders and the original Demand;
(ii) An acceptance or a rejection of my Offer to service;

Your Company is now in my debt by the amount specified in said Fee Schedule for letter communications. You should therefore, in order to remain in honour and to operate under established business practices, send a cheque by return.

Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Mog » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:05 am

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. "

Winston Churchill
User avatar
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:56 pm
Location: Derby

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:52 pm

Hi Mog. Thanks very much for Rah-ing me on. Gratefully received. I needed that. However, I'm still in mystery. Do you think this approach will work? I'm trying to get some guidance about what will work and what wont and I still feel at sea. I can easily keep criticising them but I want to be effective and not only back them off but also get them to pay out what they owe, especially in damages and for harassment. I want to strike a real blow for FMOTL and freemen everywhere. The best place to wound them is 'in the pocket' as we used to say. I'm not really worried about making money but shall I tell you what I want (what I really really want)?

JUSTICE ! According to the Law of the Land.

Come on folks... I've got to get something off to them. Please help me with some much needed advice. They're threatening to take my car, attach my miserable pension and steal £700, put six points on my licence and loads of other spiteful and nasty actions - all because their over-inflated egos won't let them back off when they think they've got the power. Just like the grossly fat and abusive Beadle Bumble in Oliver Twist. No Common Law = no common decency.

BTW I'm also proposing to attach a PS. One of Veronica's brilliant analysis pieces as follows:

Extracts from Magna Carta:

Magna Carta 'foreword':
We have also granted to all free men of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever:

[13] And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs as well by land as by water. Furthermore, we will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

[20] A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a grave offence he shall be amerced in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood--if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good men of the neighbourhood.

[i] So how can someone's stock LAWFULLY be seized (e.g., their motor vehicle)? How can their stock be seized, even if they are made bankrupt? It can't. The act of seizure is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.[/i]

[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.

A vehicle's power is measured in 'horse-power'. So how can a car be impounded? It can't. The act of seizure is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

[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.

"... nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so…” this means your ‘Further Steps Notice’ is wholly unlawful; “…lawful judgement of his equals ..." means a Jury of 12; "... by the law-of the-land" means The Common Law, which is documented therein. There was no Parliament in 1215, and hence no Statutes. Consequently NO STATUTE can ever be "The Law-of-the-Land", can it?

A "Fixed Penalty Notice" is, therefore, totally UNLAWFUL & UNCONSTITUTIONAL - and the imposition of one is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

[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.

Do you know all these Laws? Well, you do now.

[52] If anyone has been disseised of or kept out of his lands, castles, franchises or his right by us without the legal judgment of his peers, we will immediately restore them to him: and if a dispute arises over this, then let it be decided by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace: for all the things, however, which anyone has been disseised or kept out of without the lawful judgment of his peers by king Henry, our father, or by king Richard, our brother, which we have in our hand or are held by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them, we will have the usual period of respite of crusaders, excepting those things about which a plea was started or an inquest made by our command before we took the cross; when however we return from our pilgrimage, or if by any chance we do not go on it, we will at once do full justice therein.

Unless a Bailiff is carrying a Warrant based on the Verdict of a Jury of 12, that Warrant is UNLAWFUL & UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


[55] All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else let them be settled by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace [See Article 61].

[61] [Lawful Rebellion] Since, moreover, for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have granted all these things aforesaid, wishing them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we give and grant them the under-written security, namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe, hold and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyone or transgress any of the articles of the peace or the security and the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of the kingdom, and, laying the transgression before us, shall petition us to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days, reckoning from the time it was brought to our notice or to that of our justiciar if we were out of the kingdom, the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can, saving our person and the persons of our queen and our children, until, in their opinion, amends have been made; and when amends have been made, they shall obey us as they did before. And let anyone in the land who wishes take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and with them to distress us as much as he can, and we publicly and freely give anyone leave to take the oath who wishes to take it and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling of themselves and of their own accord to take an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them to distrain and distress us, we will make them take the oath as aforesaid at our command. And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country or is in any other way prevented from carrying out the things aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five barons shall choose as they think fit another one in his place, and he shall take the oath like the rest. In all matters the execution of which is committed to these twenty-five barons, if it should happen that these twenty-five are present yet disagree among themselves about anything, or if some of those summoned will not or cannot be present, that shall be held as fixed and established which the majority of those present ordained or commanded, exactly as if all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and will do all they can to get them observed. And we will procure nothing from anyone, either personally or through anyone else, whereby any of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing is procured, let it be void and null, and we will never use it either personally or through another.

We are not only fully entitled to rebel LAWFULLY, we are actually ENCOURAGED to do it AS OUR DUTY to our ancestors & our descendants. We are entitled to throw as many 'spanners in as many works', as may be necessary, in order to bring the United Kingdom BACK TO LAW. The only restraint on us is that we do this IN PEACE. Simple non-cooperation. We do this not only for ourselves and 'ours' ... BUT ALSO FOR YOU AND YOURS. And never forget that.

[63] Wherefore we wish and firmly enjoin that the English church shall be free, and that the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions well and peacefully, freely and quietly, fully and completely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places for ever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all these things aforesaid shall be observed in good faith and without evil disposition. Witness the above-mentioned and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runnymede between Windsor and Staines on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

As I’ve said before, your ‘Court’ is so far out on a limb that there isn’t even a tree.
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:07 pm

So sorry. Bad oversight. Many thanks to you nameless and pitano1 for you help in this. You're great!
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Mog » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:07 pm

Like your style Eileen however "Have I proceeded too arrogantly in my enthusiasm to rebel, do you think?" well maybe, most seem to have a go with the energy companies or debts like myself with some success, but I have never heard of anyone being paid on an invoice for replying ! They are fun to write and do seem to stop the demands for payment but as for the seventeen hundred pounds I charged Southern Electric and twelve hundred to Captial One, not one penny has been forthcoming, even started sending them red reminders until I became bored.
I think it depends how far you want to go ? The talk of misconduct in public office and bringing your own criminal prosecution seems more appropriate for the courts and sounds like the way forward but it's a big step and evidence needs to be there, V's latest video broaches on this.
Sorry I do not have any quick and easy answers, am waiting for a court date to challenge the road traffic act myself but these things take forever.
"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. "

Winston Churchill
User avatar
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:56 pm
Location: Derby

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:58 pm

Thanks again, Mog, for this prompt reply.

You sound as if you are further down the line than I am and I'd love to talk to you on Skype or by telephone to get the details of how you proceeded with getting a court date. Do you have a little time to spend telling me your story? I'd be very grateful. You can PM me if you wish and let me know.

In respect of getting them to pay for replies, I'd always presumed that the wording in Veronica's templates was strictly correct and so you can legitimately charge for your replies. It's just that I haven't a clue about how to go about collecting it. Is it not right then? Are the charges just to agg them up?

In respect of evidence, I exhausted all V's templates on the police and two courts, so I'd say there is plenty, if not an abundance of it. Not once did any of them ever address the questions and matters raised. They just ignored them and moved on.

You also speak of Veronica's latest video. I don't know where to find that. Any chance you (or anyone else) could let me have a link to it please?

Thanks very much for your interest, opinions and support. It really helps.

Cheers again. :shake: :peace:
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby enegiss » Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:45 pm

V's latest video broaches on this.

You also speak of Veronica's latest video. I don't know where to find that. Any chance you (or anyone else) could let me have a link to it please?

yep, i would also like a link to v,s latest vid concerning misconduct in a public office, any links anyone,, thanks guys
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm


Return to Welcome to the Freeman-on-the-land Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests