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.

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby FASEN8R » Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:39 am

Is this the video you speak of?? :thinks:

The Kent Freedom Movement are proud to present Veronica of the Chapman family.

Veronica talks about all of the latest information she has available, particularly the only available "keys" we have, which are Jury Nullification and Private Prosecutions for Misconduct in Public Office (these "keys" are incredibly powerful if we use them, and certainly have the capability to knock "The System" for six. She will also talk about Contempt of Court (what it is, and what it isn't), and what Courts are - and what they are not.




http://www.youtube.com/v/ySPHijlino0

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I Learn!!
User avatar
FASEN8R
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby enegiss » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:38 am

Thanks FASEN8R, i think it might be, i had not Favorited it the last time i had watched it and had forgotten the title , :shake:
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Mog » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:09 am

That is the video of which i speak, the more i think of it the simpler it seems, anyone who works in the public sector (police, government, council, judges, ect) is guilty of "misconduct in public office" every time they do something that is not in the best interest of the people and are liable to life in prison :police: :police: :police: With a private criminal prosecution, as long as there is evidence, a judge must process it or he in turn becomes guilty of the same crime :thinks: :thinks: that would be a dangerous game for them to play, it would only require one honest judge and the whole house of cards would come tumbling down :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

As for my court case its still one being brought by the CPS, after which I am expecting a misconduct in public office to have been perpetrated, at which time I may move to pursue the private criminal prosecution
?
"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. "

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

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Dreadlock » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:53 pm

Hi Eileen.

In a matter such as this the common law is irrelevant as the magistrate's court cannot see it. You have to make it clear that at the time of the incident you were acting
as a natural person of inherent jurisdiction availing yourself of the rights you have in that capacity i.e to use the public highways as you see fit and without causing harm or hindrance to anyone.

You have to make it clear that at the time of the incident you were not using your driver's license and nor were you a government employee or acting as an agent of government, as these are the presumptions that
are made by the Crown. You must rebut them. Ask them for evidence that you were using your driver's license or that you were acting in either of the aforementioned capacities - of course they will not have any.
This means that the Crown has no case against you and the court should dismiss the case.

You may have done all this already. Anyway, good luck.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:20 pm

My thanks to you all for such support. :cheer:

Unfortunately, I've only just seen these last messages and sent off the response I had been planning yesterday (as previously discussed). I was hopeful that it would back them off as I demanded that they set aside the void order that they had created and telling them they could not refuse to do this. I also made it clear that if they continued to ignore my legitimate enquiries that I would seek a judicial review and if necessary, take up a private prosecution. I also demanded a trial by jury and so on. I sent various supporting enclosures on Oaths and the Magna Carta 1215, so that (if they read them) they should see that they cannot succeed in any court case.

In a matter such as this the common law is irrelevant as the magistrate's court cannot see it. You have to make it clear that at the time of the incident you were acting
as a natural person of inherent jurisdiction availing yourself of the rights you have in that capacity i.e to use the public highways as you see fit and without causing harm or hindrance to anyone.


Thanks very much Dreadlock for the above info. I've not heard of this this before. Do you think I should send a follow up letter now using this approach as well, or might it look to them as if I don't know what I'm doing and embolden them further? At the moment, I just want to get them off my case. I've got a great raft of family problems right now and the weight of it all is grinding me down a bit. However, I still burn to go back at them when I'm in better shape.

My heartfelt thanks for the video link and all the other help I've received. I can't tell you what it means to me. What a great membership this forum has. Love to you all. Talk soon. :peace: :love:
eileen
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Sep 30, 2012 8:40 pm

£700 for a speeding offence seems a bit extreme to me. Penalties are supposed to be proportionate to the nature of the offence. £700 is a huge chunk of an average salary.
I think you therefore have grounds to appeal the penalty, maybe get it reduced.
Your best bet at this point is to get some advice from a solicitor on how and if you can appeal, although I wouldn't go so far as to have one represent you in court.
In my opinion not attending court when summonsed is always a bad move, if you don't defend yourself no one else will!
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:16 am

Hi again Dreadlock. Thanks for your further comments.

Although there is no specific instruction on how to apply them, I sent this template of Veronica's which suggests to me that I did not have to do anything until they either accepted or rejected the offer. Is that not right? In fact, they just ignored the notice and went straight to judgment.

Dear Sir,
Notice of Receipt of Order and Offer to Service
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.
Regarding Reference: ********* correspondence dated ** August, 2012 from **** Magistrates Court.
I write in response to a Notice dated ** August, 2012 sent by ******* Magistrates Court which informs me that your PRIVATE COMPANY, claiming LIMITED LIABILITY, and actively TRADING AT A PROFIT ON BEHALF OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS is demanding that I attend a hearing on ** September, 2012 and threatening that you will create an Order in my absence in favour of some Claimant, and (apparently) against myself if I do not attend. Please click link below:

Dun & Bradstreet web page showing that credit reports are available for their company)

I have returned the correspondence to ***** Magistrates court (and copy it to you herewith) and write to point out that the Claimant (being no more than another PRIVATE COMPANY, claiming LIMITED LIABILITY, and actively TRADING AT A PROFIT ON BEHALF OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS) had no right whatsoever, under the Common Law-of-the-Land, to make any such demand (of anyone). And that your Company did not have my consent to use the Arbitration Services you offer. This renders any Order TOTALLY UNLAWFUL as things stand (please also click the following link).

(Dun & Bradstreet web page showing that credit reports are available for their company)

In short, until you can show some LAWFUL obligation on my part, I do not CONSENT to TRADE with either Company.
Nevertheless I may still be prepared to go ahead and service said Order, provided that it takes place under normal business practices. Thus, since any Order is chargeable, and the rate for servicing it is set by whoever services said Order, I hereby give you Notice that my fees for doing so will be £150 in excess of any amount you may Order.
Are you prepared to pay £150, in excess of the amount of your Order, such that your Order can be serviced? Your Company, after all, will have made the Order and be requesting payment, will it not? (Together with UNLAWFUL threats and menaces, I might add). If I do not hear back from you within ten (10) days, then I will assume that you are not.
Otherwise please send a cheque for the amount of your Order, PLUS £150 (cash with Order are the terms), and - once your cheque has cleared - I will service your Order immediately.
(Please note, in case you are confused: Enclosed with this Notice you will find pages headed "Arbitration", "Statutes" and "Orders". These define the position under the Common Law-of-the-Land, and hence your Company's position, in reality. It's all quite simple really. If your Company ordered, say, stationery, then it would expect to pay the Supplier, at the Supplier's rate).
Unless your subsequent communication accepts my Offer to service your Order, I hereby give you Notice that any other communications in this matter - which you have raised without my consent - will cause me to apply fees at the rates quoted below, for which - by contacting me - you agree to be liable by 'performance':

FEE SCHEDULE

Telephonic conversations: £400/hour or part thereof.
Emails: £200 for each and every instance.
Letters: £200 for each and every instance.
Research: £100/hour or part thereof.
If it should be necessary - due to your non-contractual insistence - for this matter to be raised in any future court, you agree to be liable to pay for my time away from home at 100/hour, plus travel, food and accommodation expenses.
Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,
*********-****: of the *** family
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Inalienable Human Rights reserved.
Enc. *** Magistrates Court Notice.
1. Enclosure "Arbitration".
2. Enclosure "Statutes".
3. Enclosure "Orders".

Have I misunderstood what I needed to do?

While I'm messaging, could you also explain in more detail about:

You have to make it clear that at the time of the incident you were acting as a natural person of inherent jurisdiction availing yourself of the rights you have in that capacity i.e to use the public highways as you see fit and without causing harm or hindrance to anyone.

I've now sent that off as an addendum to my previous notice but I don't quite understand why that is legal and sounds to have such power.

Thank you so much Dreadlock. I'm really 'backs to the wall' right now and your support is very much appreciated.
eileen
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:45 pm

The presumption of the CPS is that at the time of the alleged offense you were acting within their jurisdiction. You are within their jurisdiction if you are an employee or agent of government or performing some function thereof.
You are also within their jurisdiction if you are using a title which belongs to them. We are all given title when we are born, via our birth certificates, and the CPS presumes we are using it. Titles are "Mr, Miss, Sir, Lord, Baron, etc."
The title is their property, we have the right to use it but must obey the rules and regulations that go along with that use. Use of title is of course voluntary.

The CPS does have the right to fine you if you were speeding and acting within their jurisdiction. The common law is irrelevant as is the constitution. If you use someone's property you must obey the terms and conditions of that use - or simply not use it.

However, the onus is on the CPS to prove that you were acting within their jurisdiction, but only if you have rebutted their presumption that you were. If they are not rebutted their presumption stands.

In my opinion the template is unnecessary and in this situation is useless. If, having rebutted the presumption of the CPS and they having failed to prove or produce any evidence supporting their claim (that you were acting within their jurisdiction), the court still found in their favour (which would be immensely stupid of them), then you could bring charges against the magistrate's court, for violating your common law rights, by taking the case to Queen's Bench court where the common law and constitution can be seen.

However, as the hearing has already taken place and you did not rebut their presumption (?) then the only way forward is to appeal. A solicitor would be useful at this point, but don't expect them to be aware of the whole title thing. A barrister's advice would probably be better - but pricey!
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby eileen » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:14 pm

Oh dear. All that running around for nothing!

Thanks very much again, Mog. This is new knowledge to me and has escaped me altogether and you're right I did not rebut this before they came to judgment.

Can I ask, why do I need a solicitor to appeal? Can I do it through the RAC? They sometimes defend you in court, I believe. Or am I out of date? If I do go to a barrister as you suggest, are their costs recoverable? Could you recommend one? As far as I knew, you have to go to a solicitor and they find you a suitable barrister. Can I find one directly? I don't know whether I can afford one. What are ordinary people supposed to do, if they cannot afford counsel? Is there any alternative?

I was sentenced on the 3rd September. Do I still have time to appeal?

Can anyone explain why Veronica seems to have left this important piece of knowledge out of her wonderful work? Until now, I've always found her templates to be very effective.

Sorry to keep you at it Mog but I'm now in an emergency situation. They have said that bailiffs will be calling to take my property or they will attach my pension for the money. Can they do this do you know? They are also giving me six points. I do need to avoid that.

However, even if I fail, at least I have discovered this. I was only speeding by accident. The limit came down from 70mph to 40mph very abruptly and as I was slowing, the camera was on me clicking away for its evidence. There was no danger of any kind so - a sneaky little trap to make money, methinks!

Thanks again for any further comments you may offer. :yes:
eileen
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 9:09 pm

Re: Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

Postby Mog » Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:19 am

I think you should appeal the courts decision, you do not need a solicitor, however I think its 21 days time limit :puzz: then you will have to ask permission to appeal "out of time" and need a excuse as to why you left it so long, illness sounds good, you should contact the court they will give you all the info.
Don’t worry about the bailiffs or attachment of earnings, that’s way down the road but the 6 points may have already gone on your licence.
"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. "

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

PreviousNext

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest