Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

[eileen]

Hi again.

Good news! Well goodish anyway.

I must've done something right (I don't know what) but I've been told I will be allowed to appeal to the Crown Court. At first, I thought I was being invited to an appeal in the Magistrates court itself and I was thinking I would turn it down and pursue them in a private prosecution unless they set their void judgment aside as I had previously demanded.

However, what is the Crown Court? Can I elect to be tried by jury? Or is it just the same as a Magistrate's court only higher, where they still work to delude us and use subterfuge to impose admiralty law on us, telling us we have legal obligations that we indubitively do not have under common law. It seems to me that to challenge them on their own ground is to walk into a lion's den. They have a lot of dangerous teeth and claws and if you're not too sound on dodging the bites and strikes of lion's claws, you're going to get everything they can thow at you plus a right mauling! And believe me, I'm nobody's idea of a Ninja..

Can anyone enlighten me about the Crown Court please? Should I stay or should I go? If I go aren't I accepting their jurisdiction? Understanding? I don't know if you're still out there Dreadlock but could you tell me what you think, please?

I watched the video you recommended and I thought Dean's ideas on jurisdiction were great! However, I got confused. Some of the sound quality was indistinct and he kept switching from being dragged into court in handcuffs to the things he had learned about juridiction. It was also about British Columbia and I didn't know what is and isn't relevant to this country. I don't know if I misunderstood or just didn't get it but I thought he was saying don't go to court but to establish that they don't have the jurisdiction to try your case.

He gave great info on setting up an affidavit and compiling the evidence so that the judge only has to flick though to see what the case is about. Then, unless the Crown rebuts your challenge to their jurisdiction (which they won't if you've got it right) then he is obliged to discharge or dismiss the case.

What I didn't understand was whether the Crown is always the plaintiff in motoring matters. The reason I ask, is because the letter I have received says that the case is: Police v Yourself (i.e., me). If the Police are prosecuting this, how do I challenge them? In the same way? That is, to ask whether the Crown has any proof that I was using my licence? Or driving during government employment, or as a government agent, etc. If I go to Crown Court is that the way to deal with it?

I quote from the letter I received: "I would further point out to you that legal contents of yours has absolutely no relevance in relation to the legislation that governs the operation of the Courts and the manner in which the Court administers justice."

They would say that I suppose but they have refused to set aside their void order and in response to my questions they gave me the judge's name but remained silent on whether he was under his oath when trying the case in my absence. I take this to mean that he wasn't. They have also dismissed all my repeated challenges to their jurisdiction by just ignoring my concerns and questions.

So where do I go from here? Any chance you, Dreadlock, or anyone with more experience could represent me in court, if I can get it transferred to a court near you? Expenses would be reimbursed and a decent reward would also be forthcoming.

Thanks again everyone for reading this. It hasn't escaped me that there haven't been any comments for several days. Please let's keep this going. If we can win this, I feel it would be a good victory for all Freeman, adding more strength and confidence to the movement. That would be my hope any way.

Look forward to further comments.

Bye for now.

[Dreadlock]

Hi Eileen,

Glad you have the appeal. Read the info at the following link:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Sentencingprisonandprobation/Appealingagainstasentenceorconviction/DG_196095

Looks like you won't get a jury - which IMO is a good thing, because if you did you would have to convince 12 brainwashed, ignorant, morons (for the most part) that everything they thought they knew about
laws and statutes and driving is wrong and you would have to explain to them why. Not a task I would envy. However, you should know this topic inside out so that you could explain it to a moron if necessary.

Canadian law is essentially the same as British law, so most of what was in the video applies. It is always best to sort out the problem in advance so that you don't end up in court. You are past that stage however.

I'm pretty sure the case against you will have been brought by the CPS rather than the police. The job of the police is to gather evidence, not do the actual prosecuting. In any case, you defend yourself in the same way
regardless.

I would really forget about challenging the court's jurisdiction, stick to challenging the jurisdiction of whoever is making the claim against you. Remember, they are the ones who need to produce evidence to support their claim - which will be impossible for them if you rebut it properly.

I would be doing you a disservice if I represented you in court as I have no experience in that department. Maybe some else can help, but I really think you should do it yourself. Win or loose, you'll feel a hell of a lot better about yourself having tried.

Keep it simple!
1. You were using your common law right to use the public highways. Search the net for cases where this right has been upheld.
2. You have a driving license which you were not using. Can they prove otherwise?
3. You were not driving under title. I.e you were using the road as <christian name> <family name> with no preceding title such as "Miss" or "Mrs". Can they prove otherwise?
4. You are not an employee or agent of government - if they say you are, can they produce a payroll with your name on or some other evidence?
5. You are not a UK citizen. Should they ask, you are an English woman or a woman of England (Scotland, Wales, wherever).

That's basically it. Don't worry about using title in the court and don't get into an argument with the judge over it. Just because you are acting in the capacity of "Miss Whoever" when in court, in no way implies that you were at the time
of the incident!

All the best.

[OffTheGrid]

Hi Eileen,and may I just say,well done you.
I have followed this post and must say I totally sympathize with you on the total a***holes you are having to deal with. Getting true justice today is an almost impossible task,but,without people like you taking the system on,it will get even more unlikely.I hope you get some satisfaction from all the hard work you have put in, but may I say, that win or lose,we have learned a great deal from your very brave attempt and people like you make it much easier for those following behind to add a bit more to your efforts and maybe one day we will get a sure fire winning strategy.
Again my admiration goes to you and good luck.

[eileen]

Hi OffTheGrid.

Thanks very much for your kind comments. I don't feel your praise is that well-deserved. It's true that I'm angry but it is on behalf of us all, both Freemen and humanity at large.

...may I say, that win or lose,we have learned a great deal from your very brave attempt and people like you make it much easier for those following behind to add a bit more to your efforts and maybe one day we will get a sure fire winning strategy.

As you may have seen, I have appealed for other members to contribute their ideas so that we can all learn and develop strategies, etc. I did set out hopefully to make my contribution so that we could all learn more but I'm not into 'losing' to a bunch of crims (however well-organised and powerful). In terms of any personal bravery, well, it doesn't feel that way. Admittedly I've been pretty dogged on this. That's because they had the effrontery to ignore all the brilliant DebtBust template letters and moved straight to judgment and sentence. Me? I'm feeling very scared a lot of the time. The fact that they've not even acknowledged my concerns until their last letter has me feeling completely confused and fearful on how I should move forward. I can tell you it hurts.

It looks like I'm going to have to appeal, which is a contradiction in terms to this particular Freeman. This surely means I must willingly stand under their jurisdiction when they have no such jurisdiction over me. I also will have to plead not guilty and then fight it out on their terms and on their ground.

Well, the wonderful Dreadlock has shown that that may be possible but I'm ageing fast and my confidence and mental acuity are becoming weaker all the time. It seems entirely possible to me that I will go blank and won't be able to think straight, let alone do battle with a Magistrate and the Prosecutor. I feel I need some help in court, so I can learn the process from someone more experienced in such matters but (understandably) I haven't managed to find anyone willing.

Yes, I too want to find more certain ways to deal with this human detritus. As a matter of interest, I have used the DebtBust letters seven or eight times and each time backed them off (however, they sometimes leave a little time and try again), making it all the more shocking when they ignore me.

Thanks again for your kindness. I need some right now.

Hi Dreadlock too.

Thanks so much for your latest. As usual it is an excellent contribution. I've been pretty unwell over the weekend and so have had a bit of a job getting out of bed at all. I hope I can get back to you (and the other members) tomorrow (Monday) with my further questions and to report on my ideas on the way forward.

This means I have to stand under their jurisdiction when they have no such jurisdiction over me. I also will have to plead not guilty and then fight it out on their terms on their ground.

I don't mean to be negative at all but I'm not at all certain that I'm competent to do that. Would you kindly consider this matter and advise when you can please?

My thanks again to all. You're great.

Talk tomorrow I hope.

[eileen]

Hi to everyone.

Very sorry not to have been in touch.There have been some slow developments which I want to report but am chasing my tail at the moment. I hope to find a little time on Friday to post a full update. Till then very best wishes to all forum members.

[squark]

Hi Eileen. Interesting thread this one. Good for me as revision/swatting as I have a similar thing on-going. I was travelling with no tax, insurance or license. It went to magistrates court. I stood as a Man not fiction and they would not let me speak. So I sat in the public gallery and listened as they perjured themselves by saying the summons was not responded to. They completely ignored all the paperwork I had sent in. There was a 700 quid fine and six points.

I did an appeal, which has not been replied to yet. I have established that the Police and CPS have seen my paperwork but have ignored it. The appeal form is easy. Out of time appeal just needs a reasonable reason I imagine. Once appeal is made its like the case is blanked, restarted from scratch so enforcement/collection on the earlier decision should stop (maybe a letter needed (it is ready to send in my case)) I wrote to the license people too about points.

I’m reading peoples comments on your case and I think you have done pretty good. Heck, just causing them to break their stride for a moment, wonder about what they are doing, just a chink in the armour can open up to defeat for them and a win for our rights.

Dreadlock says maybe use a solicitor. No, no, no. It’s a trap. REPRESENTING? I’m not even going to represent myself, let alone have someone else do it. I AM GOING AS ME! In the flesh! I AM HERE NOW PRESENT AS A MAN, EQUAL TO ALL OTHERS AND UNDER ONLY GOD, nothing less than that!

I say SIMPLE, write it down, not too much stuff but stuff that counts. I’m not a Fiction. I am a Man. I don’t consent, am not an employee or trustee, have no contract, don’t understand, accept no liability for the Crowns fiction but full liability for myself. I am competent (maybe ignorant ( of THE (your)SYSTEM, but so what , it’s yours not mine) and not a ward of the court. Why did you take my car? Do you hold title to it? Why did you not respond to my paperwork and instead insist on meeting here? This act you refer to, do you believe I am a PARTY to that agreement?

I LIKE THIS A LOT! “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.”
PUBLIC HIGHWAY! RIGHT OF WAY!!

I had a problem with the name thing (ie. are you MR SQUARKETY SQUARK) I am liking “Yes Sir, that’s the name my Mother unconditionally gave to me. I believe THE CROWN has created a Trust with the same name and fear an error has occurred. I am not a Trustee or any kind of fiction. I am a Man, the flesh lives and the blood flows. Indeed I believe I may be the beneficiary of that Trust and an ANNUITY has been ACCRUING which is now overdue and owing. “ See, now I have a counter claim, a reason for me to be there and keen to question them. (It’s not my only one. My counter is TWOCing and Fraudulent contract or please pay me now for the hire of my car ($1000 per day*100 +days)ha ha).

Dreadlock said Keep it simple!
1. You were using your common law right to use the public highways. Search the net for cases where this right has been upheld.
2. You have a driving license which you were not using. Can they prove otherwise?
3. You were not driving under title. I.e you were using the road as <christian name> <family name> with no preceding title such as "Miss" or "Mrs". Can they prove otherwise?
4. You are not an employee or agent of government - if they say you are, can they produce a payroll with your name on or some other evidence?
5. You are not a UK citizen. Should they ask, you are an English woman or a woman of England (Scotland, Wales, wherever).
I would add that you are not a ward of the court. I read somewhere that they assume we are all incompetent, paupers and need a guardian figure and assume that is their role. Rebut that!

And then….” It looks like I'm going to have to appeal, which is a contradiction in terms to this particular Freeman. This surely means I must willingly stand under their jurisdiction when they have no such jurisdiction over me. I also will have to plead not guilty and then fight it out on their terms and on their ground.”
My appeal I think is De Novo (that’s what they implied, completely new hearing), from Wikipedia
In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision. The decision maker to whom the appeal is made may be a court, a board, a tribunal or even a single official. Generally, only the party aggrieved below has standing to appeal.[1] A court is used in the examples below.
De novo vs. on the record
Very broadly speaking there are appeals on the record and de novo appeals. In de novo appeals, the new decision maker re-hears the case without any reference to the rulings of the prior decision maker, or limits on the evidence presented

And Aggrieved is
1. wronged, offended, or injured: He felt himself aggrieved.
2. Law . deprived of legal rights or claims.
3. troubled; worried; disturbed; unhappy.

Deprived of legal rights! So go be defendant! Defend yours and our Rights! Thats your DUTY!

I believe that the magistrates court (magistrates are just business people, teachers etc not Law experts!) just rubber stamp, regardless. They are to weed out the weak. We perceive an added layer of “difficulty” as we climb the Authority tree. In fact the same arguments presented to the next court up are just as relevant and just as difficult for them. I pictured simply saying I’m a man not a fiction, this one argument, and going through all the courts right up to House of Lords before meeting some Law Lord who just says “Quite right too. Drop all charges. He has every right!”

The vast majority drop out, scared, intimidated, ruled! And there is no crime in asking. And if you truly believe it is your right, there can be no “criminal intent”. And “fighting for the right” has always gone on and “defending the right “ has always been a duty.

Lastly
“I don't mean to be negative at all but I'm not at all certain that I'm competent to do that.”
Its been said just knowing who you are is enough, better in fact than trying the legal jargon. Its their system for FICTIONAL PERSONs, all but irrelevant to men/women! How can you be INCOMPETENT at being YOURSELF?
If you speak and write so an average person can understand, they have no excuse, its good enough for the law. If they claim they don’t “get your meaning” dismiss them as incompetent! And if you get threatened with contempt or the like, ask what that means and what the consequence would be. If the judge says drop that line of questioning or else, tell him” OK under THREAT and DURESS over my PROTEST I will say whatever you tell me to say. How do you wish me to proceed?” Its all irrelevant as anything done under duress is void.

Stay polite, ask questions, expect answers, stick to your point, keep it simple. The system is complicated, their system, men and women are generally fairly simple. Prima Facia evidence that their system is not meant for us! Confident and competent hand in hand! JUST BE YOURSELF!

If there is still a fine at the end of it all.....its to teach you a lesson....educate you.....education is a benefit....you can waive a benefit!

[eileen]

Gee Squark...

Just read this post. Brilliant! And much much thanks.

I have to get to Gravesend shortly, so I can't do a considered response at this minute. Sorry. However, I do think this thread is taking on some importance (not particularly to do with my contribution but it does seem to have touched a raw nerve that needs opening out and conclusions buttoned down).

I've now responded with an interesting letter to the court and await their response. When I get a few minutes (hopefully in the next few days) I'll copy it to a new post for learning and comments.

My sincere thanks to everyone for all your passion and objectivity.

I'll write more fully soon.

[pitano1]

.a natural `PERSON` is still a fiction.

? everything.
person=persona=mask=legal entity.

pitano1

[Dreadlock]

The following from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.

PERSON. A man considered according to, the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised.

Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by law for the purposes of society and government, called "corporations" or "bodies politic."

Natural persons. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations

[pitano1]

hi dreadlock.
free dictionay..natural person n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

my question is why.?
would a womb/man need a seperate persona.
also would a natural person have obligations/duties..ie be bound
by society.
[A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a "thing" is the object over which rights may be exercised.]

eg.PERSON. A man considered according to, the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

i see no distinction in the above.

also the very word PERSON,is an artificial construct..ie man made.
and the men that gave/give us our language do so for the benefit of themselves.

this particulaly applies to the crown,and its` lacky`s.`

i would argue,that if one is using a persona natural or fictitious,you are
not representing the flesh,and blood/spirit of the womb/man.

another thing i question is `human being`.

see monster. eh.

in their `so called`favourite tomb..t.k.j. bybull
it ses right at `well nearly`start...he created them
male,and female.
not human beings
not natural`or` otherwise persons.

just my thoughts.
pitano1