Affidavit served today..

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby treeman » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:28 pm

The legacy of Elizabeth Beckett was sown wisely. :yes: :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:32 am

Namaste brother.
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Prajna » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:33 am

You come across well, bro. Good vid.
FREEDOM Best Before: 11 Sept 2001 and
User avatar
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: UK

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:09 pm

Thank you Prajna I thought it was a bit lame tbh but it got the point across :0)

I wasn't the only one either, if you read the comments from commonly known as Dom below the video on You tube.....what a moron he turned out to be !

Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:01 pm

No reply from Dominic Grieve so here is the (rather long) Notice that I served on him on the 17th December 2012. My intention is to make my position absolutely clear so that it negates to much work at any hearing, its all down on file which simply requires the correct jurisdiction and its game over (technically)- (I also nicked and made changes to some of the letter that V sent to Judge Cadbury and, the same with a letter from Albert Burgess in a reply to Humberside police, as both were crafted well.

TO; Dominic Grieve
Attorney General's office,
20 Victoria street,

David Robinson (Interested third party to the legal fiction).

Date Notice served; 17th day of December 2012.

Sent by recorded post.

Notice to principal is notice to agent, notice to agent is notice to principal.
Dear Mr Dominic Grieve (QC.MP).
I, David Robinson (interested third party & authorised agent for the legal fiction), hereinafter Affiant, over the age of twenty-one years competent to witness and with first hand knowledge do say the following, that:
On the 16th day of November 2012, that Affiant did present to Dominic Grieve QC, MP via first class recorded mail, a true, correct and complete 'Affidavit of truth' and further documentation, evidencing some of the individual crimes committed by present and previous government officials, especially those that allude to TREASON AT COMMON LAW and, also alluding to other serious crimes i.e. Terrorism, War Crimes, Fraud and Genocide, etc, which was signed by the Affiant and witnessed by three (3) good men in support of the claims and allegations made therein. The said Affidavit was received by the Attorney Generals office on the 19th November 2012 and signed for by “MO” at 11.48 GMT.

Affiant, allowing for 28 calender days, has not received any response from Dominic Grieve with regards to the said affidavit, as of this present moment and, that Dominic Grieve has a duty of care to respond timely to the affidavit and, that ALL conditions, claims and allegations shall be affirmed by Dominic Grieve by tacit procuration and that, I hereby offer you a further opportunity to rebut or confirm said claims and allegations to remain in honour and, thus by doing so, enabling an opportunity for 'Justice to be seen to be done' and, provide a remedy with regard to this matter, so that I have the proper and just opportunity to prove that I have 'Lawful excuse' and, thus Innocent of all accusations of criminality made by Wiltshire Police Constabulary and Chippenham Magistrates Court Service. Denial of due process to Affiant is an UNLAWFUL ACT.


I trust a mistake must have been made for your acquiescence of said affidavit, notices and evidence sent to the Attorney Generals' office on the 16th of November 2012, I require a response within Ten (10) days from the date of this 'Notice of none response and opportunity to cure', that being considered a reasonable time frame for a response, of which you are bound by your Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath to reply to, in FULL, so that remedy of this matter may be procured promptly and in a just and lawful jurisdiction.

By the terms and conditions of the preceding Affidavit and notices served, you are under obligation to timely and, in good faith, respond or make proper answer with proof of your claim(s), that which may rebut/confirm my own. Your failure to do so is a dishonour and places you at default.

By your default, you are deemed to be in bad faith, violation of public trust, bond, and/or ministerial duty to do that which is right, that you have a duty of care to act observing the rule of law as a public servant with an oath of office.

This matter is stare decisis and will effect a permanent and irrevocable estoppel by any failure to respond in 'substance' to this 'Notice of Non Response and Opportunity to Cure' and, or the said affidavit and affiliated documents previously served, and received by your office on the 16th day of November 2012.

Whereas I have recently received a 'Notice of Grant of Bail' from CHIPPENHAM MAGISTRATES COURT requesting the attendance of the 'Legal Fiction' for sentencing and, also a letter from 'Karin Needham' (legal advisor) requesting the same and, whilst without her rebutting the claim of none jurisdiction made in a previous affidavit that I served on her on the 16th day of November 2012 and, that I have served CHIPPENHAM MAGISTRATES COURT with 'Notice(s) of rebuttal of jurisdiction and opportunity to cure' (as of this time Un-rebutted), of which that corporations' Justice' Clerk - Christine Murray has failed to respond to in substance and, that my vessel is not bonded for the corporate arena nor do I have any lawful obligation nor right to adhere to such coercive and criminal demands and, that it is a criminal offence to coerce another to comply to the service of a treasonous administration of 'service', therefore, in any Administrative corporate arena;

I reserve all rights and waive all privileges;
The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And we as free men and women, have the right not to contract, Statutes do not apply, a STATUTE is a “legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed” – I do not give my consent tacitly or otherwise.
We are all equal in law however knowledge separates the governed from the masters. If we are all equal, do we not have the status as sovereigns or diplomats if we so choose ?
We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
This document is not part of a negotiable instrument.
My law is the Bible. “ If righteousness is not made profitable, then corruption will prevail “.

DISCLAIMER; Any Action taken by the Affiant (as an interested third party - the living man) with regard to this matter, which can ONLY be lawfully/legally enacted upon by my self under 'duress of circumstances' with 'lawful excuse' at this time, thus any presumption of consent/contract by the Affiants usage of any Maritime administrative principles/rules/doctrines or whatever with regard to any or all, past, present and future communications with regard to this matter, will be an entirely FALSE presumption.

Furthermore, everything that I state, or assert, herein is capable of being checked out and thus proven as 'factual'. Thus I am not stating opinions, but verifiable fact. (I can supply links to references as necessary, however they are not supplied herein). For clarity and as to my defence in relaying my understanding as to the law, I've broken it down into sections, each with its own heading. Firstly, a Little documented History thus verifiable Fact;

In 1366 King Edward III received a demand from the Pope for the unpaid monies threatening to take action against Edward if it was not paid, Edward spoke with the Bishops and the Barons and they spoke with the Commons, who the following day, first the Bishops then the Barons and finally the Commons told Edward that King John did not own England, he only holds it in trust for those who follow on. John broke the law and his agreement with the Pope did not count and the monies were not to be paid. I hope you can understand the Constitutional importance of this ruling. It makes the surrender by Heath of Parliaments authority to govern England to the EEC in whole, or in part an act of High Treason. Queen Elizabeth II had no authority to grant assent to the 1972 EEC Act, and by default her Parliament had no authority to even consider the matter. She is in breach of contract. Likewise John Major had no right to make Queen Elizabeth II a vassal Queen to Brussels, another Constitutional impossibility. Therefore, treason is being compounded in England by this and previous Governments whereas, the evidence is made obvious by the FACT that The Queen is now a citizen of Europe.

Blackburn v. The Attorney General 1971 was a legal challenge against the government. We do know that governments cannot be challenged in the courts. However individual Ministers can be challenged. If allegations against such Ministers are laid before the police then the police service has a clear duty to uphold the criminal law, and to place those who transgress it before the courts. In the words of their police oath; … “without favour, fear, malice, or ill will”. As the holder of the office of constable they are not permitted to grant a dispensation from a criminal enquiry because the crime occurred on the floor of either Houses of Parliament.
Chief Justice Vaughn, of the Common Pleas, in Sorrel v Thomas 1674 on the dispensing power of the King applies. The King cannot grant a dispensation from the penalty for a Common Law offence. He can grant a dispensation for a statute offence, but not for all statute offences. If a third party is involved, who would have a right to sue for damages, the King cannot give a dispensation from the penalty. What the King cannot do, parliament, who operate in the Kings name, also cannot do.

(NOTE); In any Hearing that takes place with regard to this entire matter, I David Robinson shall be considered the acting authorised agent for the claimant, in order to sue for damages and to aid in the return of the Rule of Law and independence from any usurping foreign Jurisdiction (EU) and, I will do so on my full commercial Liability and penalty of perjury. It is entirely Unlawful for Affiant to engage/conduct any business whatsoever in commerce, within the 'Public Arena' at this time, especially whilst I have made Oath to the Barons' Committee in support of their invoking Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) in March 2001 and, by Un-rebutted Affidavit to (Alleged) Queen Elizabeth 11, I shall present this matter to a properly convened Court of Law, in honour and entirely Innocent of all charges alleged.

'The Judicial Oath'
By even the law societies own legislation, the Judicial Oath must be sworn along with the previously sworn Oath of allegiance (From Halsbury's 2010);


923. Oaths to be taken.
As soon as may be after their acceptance of office the following executive officers and members of the judiciary must take the oath of allegiance and official or judicial oath, in the form and manner prescribed1: First Lord of the Treasury2, Chancellor of the Exchequer3, Lord Chancellor4 (as an executive officer), Lord President of the Council5, Lord Privy Seal6, Secretaries of State7, President of the Board of Trade8, Lord Steward9, Lord Chamberlain10, Earl Marshal11, Master of the Horse12, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster13, Paymaster General14, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food15, any Minister of State who is eligible for a salary under the Ministerial Salaries Act 197516, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain (as a member of the judiciary)17, Recorder of London18, Justices of the Peace for counties and boroughs19, district judges (including a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division)20, Master of the Queen's Bench Division21, Master of the Chancery Division22, Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court23, Taxing Master of the Supreme Court24, Admiralty Registrar25, Lord Chief Justice26, Master of the Rolls27, President of the Family Division28, Vice Chancellor29, Lord Justice of Appeal30, puisne judge of the High Court31, circuit judges32, recorders33 and the Master of the Court of Protection34.
Any person who objects to being sworn may be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath, and this applies in relation to a person to whom it is not reasonably practicable without inconvenience or delay to administer an oath in the manner appropriate to his religious beliefs as it applies in relation to a person objecting to be sworn35.
If any officer specified declines or neglects, when an oath required to be taken by him is duly tendered, to take such oath, he must, if he has already entered on his office, vacate it and if he has not entered office he must be disqualified from entering it; but no person may be compelled, in respect of the same appointment to the same office, to take such oath more than once36.

1 For the prescribed forms of oath see the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 ss 2-4. Where in any oath under the 1868 Act the name of the present monarch is expressed, the name of the monarch of the United Kingdom for the time being is to be substituted: s 10. As to the mode of taking the oaths see para 924 post.

2 Ibid s 5, Schedule Pt I (amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1953; the Defence (Transfer of Functions) (No 1) Order 1964, SI 1964/488, art 2, Sch 1 Pt II; the Post Office Act 1969 s 141, Sch 11 Pt II; the Secretary of State for the Environment Order 1970, SI 1970/1681, art 5(3), Sch 4; and the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1977). The office of First Lord of the Treasury is held by the Prime Minister: see para 395 ante.


927-950. Effect of oath.
A person is bound by an oath administered in such form and with such ceremonies as he may accept without objection or declare to be binding1. If he has made a false statement in taking the oath he may be convicted of an offence2.

1 See the Oaths Act 1978 s 4(1); Perjury Act 1911 s 15(1); and civil procedure vol 11 (2009) paras 1021-1022.

2 See ibid s 2(1); Criminal Justice Act 1948 s 1(1), (2); Criminal Law Act 1967 s 1(1); and criminal law, evidence and procedure.

Whereas it is often presumed that a Judge or Magistrates Judicial Oath provided them with jurisdiction under both the common law and what they call 'Statute Law'. When we go back into English History, it is evident that the Magna Carta was created in 1215, at Runnymede, between the Barons (representing the people), and the Monarch at the time (King John). It was a TREATY not a Statute, which has wound itself down through history to now, to which has become the Coronation Oath, taken by Queen Elizabeth 11 in 1953.

In this Coronation Oath, which she solemnly swore to uphold to the utmost of her power, which is but the reincarnation of the 'Magna Carta 1215' wherein she swore to protect the 'laws and usages of the realm', in return for the sovereignty which we (the people) bestowed upon her and, that she is evidently in breach of said Oath, therefore she has relinquished her position as Sovereign, which has now been bestowed back to the people by default, who are thus duty bound by Magna Carta 1215 to stand by the decision of the Barons' Committee, whom, after they petitioned her on the 7th day of February 2001 and awaited redress for Forty (40) days and, that no redress was (ever) forthcoming, they invoked Article 61 (lawful rebellion) which in these times is the duty of the Sovereign people to enforce, in protection of their Right to self governance.

I David Robinson hereby enforce my Sovereign duty and demand that you take action in defence of the Sovereign (the people), by promptly providing a trial by jury and, within a lawful jurisdiction with regard to my claims, allegations and evidence of treason, and other crimes provided and, that being a 'properly convened court de-jure in open forum as to my constitutional, indefeasible rights and understanding in Law.

Now returning to the Facts with regard to the the 'Judicial Oath', which emulates the Coronation Oath and is supported by her Oath of Office the Coronation Oath. By swearing allegiance to her, and swearing to uphold what she swore to uphold, all who have the duty to swear the Judicial Oath are bound by the Magna Carta 1215 evidently.

It is not possible to give to someone else that which you do not possess yourself. We are not free to give away someone else's property by law. We can only give away what is ours to give. Thus if Queen Elizabeth 11 was given the sovereignty to provide her with the means to protect us all, including or via the 'laws and usages of the realm', she could only have received that honour from the people themselves as there is no other source possible, thus the people (and that includes everyone) must (by definition) be sovereign. Because only under those circumstances can we give sovereignty to the Queen. And only by protecting the laws and customs of the English constitution can she retain the Sovereignty, which she has failed to do. .

There was no parliament in 1215. The concept of a 'parliament' had not been conceived in 1215. It was not until 1295 that the first recognised parliament (the model parliament) came into being 80 years after the Magna Carta. Thus, when the Magna Carta 1215 refers to the 'law-of-the-land' it could not possibly be referring to statutes (i.e. Acts of Parliament). When the Magna Carta 1215 refers to the 'law-of-the-land/realm', it is evidently referring to what is known as the common law or law of the land/realm, not the law of the sea (Maritime Admiralty law). I can only stand under the common law/constitutional law, which stands ultimately under God's Law.

Magna Carta being pre-parliament means it is apart of the English 'Customs' and is thus held under protection by Queen Elizabeth 11 by her swearing on the Coronation Oath. Therefore the Magna Carta 1215, along with the Bill of Rights still apply as the bedrock for English Law today.

The 1689 Bill of Rights cannot be repealed nor can it be amended. The Bill of Rights, was created by those who represented the opinion of the people, as to how the English wished to be governed. The will of the people is supreme over the Sovereign and parliament.
Habeas Corpus can be traced back to the legal codes of Alfred the Great and as such it has been the law of England from times of greatest antiquity, and has become the custom and practice of England and, is itself beyond the reach of parliament, because of its very antiquity. So parliament cannot do anything it feels like. Contract makes the Law (In Maritime jurisdiction). Common sense and commonality/customary laws are abided, by like minded honourable people under Common Law and the laws of God, the latter of which stands superior to all the proceedings.

(NOTE); I demand that Habeas Corpus be observed with regard to the matters affecting this particular case. It is wholly unlawful to remand Affiant or restrain him or in any way restrict him unless, evidence of a crime under Common Law has been observed, and adjudicated upon by his equals, or a de Jure Court of Common Law.

The Declaration of Rights 1688/9 is likewise a contract between the King and the subjects and it is not within the reach of parliament to alter or repeal. The 1689 Bill of Rights is a parliamentary bill but, unlike every other bill passed by parliament, it is not subject to amendment or repeal by parliament. The reasons are two fold (1) the Bill of Rights incorporates the Declaration of Rights which is beyond the reach of parliament by virtue of the fact, that it is a contract between the King and the subject, and (2) the people who passed the Declaration into law were sent to Westminster not as Members of Parliament, but as the people’s representatives of the people at a convention. Having accepted the Declaration, William Prince of Orange was offered the Crown. Having accepted it and now being King of England he called a parliament, but instead of holding an election he appointed the representatives of the people as his parliament. They passed the Declaration into law as the Bill of Rights 1689, with two codicils, any amendments have to be made before 23 September 1689 or they are void and not lawful. This bill was for all time.

Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England 1552 - 1634 said; “reason is the life of the law, nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason. The law which is perfection of reason”. This is precisely because that's what the common law is: The common, and utterly obvious, controls that binds land dwellers in peace with all other land dwellers. And provides for Torts if someone steps out of the peaceful line. The common law is nothing other than common sense. Since the Coronation Oath is firmly based on the Magna Carta Treaty 1215 it carries with it the Judicial Oath, that which provides Judges with common law Jurisdiction.

What IS common law Jurisdiction if not the ability to control (run) a common law court ? (a constitutionally convened court. To quote Lord Diplock in 1974). And what IS a common law court ? In Magna Carta it reads that it comprises of “a jury of one's equals”. That being twelve Human beings/sovereign beings (today) irrespective of so called 'social standing'- provided they start off by being impartial. That being a fundamental requirement for 'justice to be seen to be done'.

The Common Law jurisdiction of a Judge is to 'umpire' a Common Law Court. To know (intimately) the rules of valid evidence, and to ensure that the jury only hears the best TRUTH that can be presented by both sides. In this scenario, a Judge must be acting in accordance with his/her Judicial Oath of Office.

Further notes regarding Magna Carta 1215
Note that the Magna Carta Treaty 1215 covers itself, by stating quite categorically – that anything designed to water down its provisions (for example the the Magna Carta 1297) is NULL and VOID in Law. It also implicitly states that it is every Englishman's DUTY to REFUSE to obey unfair or unjust rules. This is the sense behind Article 61 of Magna Carta, the lawful rebellion clause.

Article 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”. The Judiciary/HMCS do not have the right to choose between 'Trial by Jury' or 'the law of the land. That by our constitutional law is the accused choice (perhaps mirrored by an accused choice as to whether or not to accept summary judgement in a Magistrate's Court. Or elect to Trial by jury in a crown court ?).

Article 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”. In 1215 there was no 'Statute Law' only the common Law of the Realm. - (to deny the lawful truth when fully evidenced could be construed as an act of 'High Treason at Common Law' and, It could be seen that I was being held as a 'Political Prisoner' if I am remanded or detained in any way (Unlawful Kidnap) and, if you are known to be in possession and full knowledge of the facts in law, at any future hearing, you would be subject to the Courts and the full force of the Common law and, also be in breach of my Lawfully established fee schedule, for any further proceedings 'against' the legal fiction (Mr DAVID PAUL ROBINSON) with regard to the accusations, will be considered by the Affiant as unlawful harassment and, will cause me to suffer a Tort which may result in a Commercial Lien on your 'Person'.
Whereas YOU Mr Grieve have a duty to inform those whom work under your direction (Police, Judiciary etc) of this matter, and if you do not, and I am subjected to further intimidation and or harassment by your incompetence/acquiescence to your duty and due process, I shall be forced by Constitutional duty to pursue Lawful Action against you and have you arrested for 'Compounding Treason'. This I can do as Sovereign, you are in 'service' to the Sovereign (the people) at this time by Sworn Oath and, whilst in lawful rebellion the people are duty bound to bring back the Rule of Law by whatever means possible, whilst observing Common Law in their efforts to secure such.

Most of the Treason Acts have not been repealed. The only important Treason Act to be repealed was the 1795 Treason Act by Tony Blair’s Government. This was an illegal action and ultra vires. It was an act of treason on the part of Tony Blair and his government. The 1795 Treason Act made it an offence of treason to restrain the Queen. Therefore the crime of treason still stands to this day and shall be shown to be so when finally the Rule of Law returns to these unlawful proceedings against Affiant, which is only a matter of limited time as you yourself must surely realise.

'Statute Law'
In Halsbury's own Legal definition - “ powers exercised by the Crown, its ministers and central government departments must be derived, directly or indirectly2, from statute, common law or the royal prerogative” (below). The Said 'Statute' must correspond to the Constitution to be lawful, Common Law, or the royal prerogative. (the latter being a presumed 'un-usurped' Prerogative, which has not been the case since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Halsbury's Laws of England/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (VOLUME 1(1) (2001 REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION/(1) SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE SUBJECT/2. The principle of legality.

2. The principle of legality.
The exercise of governmental authority directly affecting individual interests must rest on legitimate foundations1. For example, powers exercised by the Crown, its ministers and central government departments must be derived, directly or indirectly2, from statute, common law or the royal prerogative3; and the ambit of those powers is determinable by the courts save in so far as their jurisdiction has been excluded by unambiguous statutory language4. The Executive does not enjoy a general or inherent rule-making or regulatory power, which is to say that it cannot generate legally binding rules without first having been given authority to do so by the legislature5. However, the Executive does have power to regulate the internal functioning of the administrative hierarchy, for example, through ministerial announcements6 and departmental circulars7 which are intended to influence or direct the conduct of public affairs in matters affecting individual interests8. In general, the principle of state necessity cannot be relied on to support the existence of a power or duty9, or to justify deviations from lawful authority10. Moreover, in the absence of express statutory authority, public duties cannot normally be waived or dispensed with by administrative action for the benefit of members of the public11.

1 This proposition is one aspect of the doctrine of the rule of law: see constitutional law and human rights vol 8(2) (Reissue) para 6.

2 Ie indirectly, in the case of statutory instruments, byelaws and other subordinate legislation. As to statutory instruments generally see statutes vol 44(1) (Reissue) para 1499 et seq. As to the power of local authorities to make byelaws see local government vol 69 (2009) para 553 et seq.

3 See constitutional law and human rights vol 8(2) (Reissue) para 367 et seq.

A Statute is defined as 'The Legislated Rules of a Society'. And a Society is defined as “ A group of like minded people who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals” And Societies have certain characteristics. The first is a name (by which the Society may be known/ referred to e.g. The 'Law Society'). The second is that it has published its 'common goals' (such that people can determine whether they are 'like-minded') and, thirdly there is 'Membership';

1.)Membership needs to be applied for. And entirely by Free Will (as opposed to 'by deception' e.g. C'est Que Vie Trust).
2.)Membership must be applied for by the individual who makes the application for himself/herself.
3.)A Membership always carries with it the ability to RESIGN (without recriminations- especially whilst using the common law and Article 61 of Magna Carta for 'lawful excuse' in these treasonous time) If a Society is later seen to be moving in a way the individual disagrees with.

The application of 'legislative rules' on non members is an Oxymoron. It is a criminal Act unless consent has been procured moreover, in this day it is coercion to commit 'misprision of treason' (though under duress of circumstances Affiant would claim as such in front of 'his equals') - (Consider asking a Barrister if he or she is bound to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and the Rules of the BMA). Consider asking a Doctor if he or she obeys the Legislated Rules of the Law Society. Would it be a criminal Act to apply the Law Societies Legislated Rules against the Postman ?

With respect Sir, Is the essence of this not consent ? Is the essence that, by joining a Society (of one's free will) one is consenting to be bound by its Legislated Rules ? (And, if one doesn't consent, one doesn't join the Society, or resigns). When it comes to Statutes/Legislated Rules, it requires consent to be bound by them. How is this 'consent' obtained within the current Administration ? It is done by DECEPTION and INTIMIDATION in times of a corrupt administration. It would be a 'conflict of jurisdiction' and 'Ultra Vires' for Chippenham Magistrates Court to be free to hear this matter, the Law societies own legislation alludes to the same does it not ?:

Halsbury's Laws of England/SHIPPING AND MARITIME LAW (VOLUME 93 (2008) 5TH EDITION, PARAS 1-590; VOLUME 94 (2008) 5TH EDITION, PARAS 591-1254)/2. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT/(1) INTRODUCTION/(iii) Present Jurisdiction/90. Restrictions on jurisdiction.

90. Restrictions on jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the English courts may be excluded or limited in Admiralty matters, or generally, as a result of (for example):

(1) conflicts of jurisdiction, and disputes as to the forum in which claims should be heard1;

If the modern day courts act as Arbitration services, based on the free will consent of BOTH parties, then they do perform the valuable service of dispute arbitration. But not where the consent of either party is obtained by deception/intimidation, etc. In order to obtain Free Will consent, these courts would need to show themselves as 'trustworthy'. Which is notoriously not the case in these unprecedented times.

If the courts have obtained the Free Will consent of BOTH parties. And if they freely declare that they are NOT acting under their Common Law Judicial Oath, but are simply acting as an arbitrator in accordance with the freely obtained consent to the service of both parties. In that case there could be no criticism of the system in a democratic society where the 'Rule of Law' is respected, and their judgements would remain entirely honourable.

There is no such thing as 'Statute Law', for the simple reason that Statutes are not Law. They are Legislated Rules i.e. 'company policy' and will always remain so. If one doesn't work for a particular company (is not an accredited member of a Society), then the company policy does not apply to them. If Natural Law (including the laws of Physics, Chemistry. etc) and Common Law is called 'Law', then Statutes are the exact opposite to 'Law'. This can be shown if one analyses the characteristics.:

1. Laws of Nature (including Laws of Physics, chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc). i.e. 'Lawful'.
a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them and their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them, in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of gravity (Newton's Law), Boyl's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Charles' Law, ohm's Law, etc.
b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No Courts are required.
c) There is no penalty for breaking them for they cannot be broken.

2. The Common Law i.e. considered 'Lawful' by free men:
a) Mankind does make them, based on common sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (what you know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).
b) They are applied by courts, called courts de jure (Courts of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by means of a jury of 12 such that it takes Twelve Humans to 'overpower' the indefeasible, natural rights of one human).
c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

3. The Legislated Rules of Societies (Statutes), i.e. 'Legal'
a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.
b) They are applied by courts, called Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitration or tribunals, etc). They are not applied equally because they always depend on 'judgement' generally of one single Human (not 12 !). It is often said that “There is one Law for the rich and one Law for the poor”.
c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b. We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a & 2b. Thus to use the same word, 'Law' to describe both 1 and 2 is not realistic. However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are each the exact inverse of 1a, 1b and 1c. And yet the same word 'Law', is used to describe them in common parlance.

This is totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe 'fire' and 'water'. Thus while, on the one hand, the Laws of Nature are, indeed, inscribed in 'tablets of stone', their exact inverse (i.e. 'Legals') become imbued with the same characteristics without any entitlement whatsoever to that characteristic.

“The laws can give rise to a FICTION, but a FICTION cannot give rise to Law” (Maxim in Law). 'Parliament ' is a FICTION. An Imagination. A concept. A name given to an amorphous group of people, who we call 'The Government'. The individuals who operate the mechanism are REAL, of course, and have DNA that can uniquely identify them. Try extracting the DNA of a Parliament, it cannot be done, because it is a fictional entity, and has no DNA. Therefore Parliament is verifiable in fact as a FICTION.

Furthermore, 'Parliament' has been in business since 1297. And has been bound by the royal prerogative to safeguard the rights and customs of the English peoples which was usurped by the passing of the 1911 parliament Act, and more recently, by various EU treaties signed by various treasonous individuals within the walls and palace of Westminster.

A FICTION CANNOT MAKE LAW. Only Common Law gets it right because it is the perfection of reason, exactly as Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke once said. “ALL a FICTION can ever do is to make itself look utterly ludicrous, even more so if it is pompous as well calling itself 'Right Honourable”, etc. There is no 'Statute Law' (there are only Legislated Rules). Consequently there cannot be any such thing as 'Statute Law Jurisdiction'. Whether it be operating under treasonous Legislation or not and, whereas I cannot Lawfully stand under the Statutes of the 1988 Roads Traffic Act nor give aid and comfort to the office of crown whilst in Lawful Rebellion, I demand you give Notice to Wiltshire Police and Chippenham Magistrates Court to CEASE and DECIST in their unlawful harassment and initiate remedy to the situation in hand forthwith.

In Law, truth is Sovereign. (if this is not the case, then there is no Law). Truth does not depend on committee decisions. It does not depend on Court judgements (High or Low). Truth depends on one thing only, FACTS.

The truth is that the Magna Carta 1215 does not recognise statutes (Historic FACT). The truth is that the Judicial Oath of Office is based fairly and squarely on a summary of what was written in the Magna Carta 1215, simply because said document defined the 'Truth' relating to the Human Condition, including interactions between Humans, and the protection of and from – the Monarch. And that basic 'condition' has and will forever remain unchanged. This (as FACT) which can readily be ascertained by reading the Magna Carta 1215 in relation to the Judicial Oaths of Office (which include the swearing of allegiance to the Monarch).

In 1295 a (recognised) parliament was created. It must have been created UNDER the Common Law, because said Common Law was already in place and (partially) documented in 1215. This is also 'Historic FACT'. Consequently ALL Statutes must defer to the Common Law – as said Statutes are superior. Reversing this argument, Statutes are, and must always remain, INFERIOR to the Common Law, law-of-the-lad/Law-of-the-Realm. (In Blacks Law Dictionary 10th edition under 'Statutes' it clearly states that a Statute must conform to the constitutional Law of the Land to be Lawful, thus Legal. (Legal is only Legal whilst being Lawful, otherwise it is unlawful and Illegal).The Law Societies Statutes are thus Unlawful and entirely illegal under Common Law at this moment in time.

A Jury of 12 need not recognise any provisions from any Statute, and may LAWFULLY disregard anything and everything (including directions from a Judge), and base their verdicts solely on the evidence provided for them to consider. (As previously stated) The Judges' job is to make sure said evidence is as accurate and as Truthful as possible (in practice). And, indeed, we find this 'deferment' actually written into statutes (the Trust Act 2000 is one example. The Fraud Act 2006 is simply an enumerated and detailed catalogue of the ways fraud can be perpetrated).

I trust my understanding to be lawful TRUTH and well researched verifiable in Fact. I give you (as said) 10 days to respond, in Substance and on your Oath of Office to this 'Notice Of Non Response and Opportunity to Cure', before I invoke a Permanent, Irrevocable Lawful estoppel and proceed with this matter in accordance with the Law of the Land.

With all my natural Inalienable, indefeasible rights reserved. Without vexation, malice or ill will and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, whist standing as potentially liable without any admission of liability whatsoever.

N.B. I Require ALL Notices, communications and evidence to be filed into the JUDGES/MAGISTRATES RECORDS at ANY hearing that ensues with regard to the matter(s) and accusations against Affiant herein documented.

David Robinson (authorised Agent & Sovereign being).
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:06 pm

This one also served on Karin Needham (Legal Advisor to Chippenham Magistrates Court).

Karin Needham (Legal Advisor)
The Courthouse,
Pewsham Way,
SN15 3BF

From: David: Robinson - (Authorised Agent to the Legal Fiction-Under duress).

Date of Notice served: 17th day of December 2012.

Sent by recorded post.


Notice to agent is notice to Principal, notice to Principal is notice to Agent

Dear Karin Needham
This Lawful 'Notice of Default' is a lawful instrument and may be used in evidence in my defence Whereas I have not received any rebuttal to the previous Notice(s) served, in 'Substance' and, by your acquiescence to the 'Notice of Non Jurisdiction and Opportunity to Cure' sent to you and dated the 4th day of December 2012, or the Affidavit of truth and affiliated documents and evidence served on the 16th day of November 2012, you are in DEFAULT and DISHONOUR and in breach of your obligation as a public servant and Judicial Oath of Office.

I shall accept that arbitration service you represent and provide has jurisdiction over the matter on proof of claim that a) a valid and lawful contract is in existence and that you have evidence of my expressed notorised consent to your service (I do NOT give consent) and, b) that you can prove without question that there is a Corpus Delecti (exception being the claimant) in this matter, c) that a criminal offence under Common Lawhas been committed by the claimant and, d) that the CROWN CORPORATION has any authority/jurisdiction to hear this matter (whilst taking into account the evidence that contradicts that presumption which has already provided by the claimant).

Furthermore, it shall mean that Karin Needham/Chippenham Magistrates Court have agreed to accept and admit to unlawful harassment, coercion and injury caused to the claimant (David Robinson-Legal Person or Agent thereof) with regard to any Tort, harassment or any other breach of fee schedule against said claimant, which has been lawfully established by the Claimant in previous documentation served and, Chippenham Magistrates Court/ Karin Needham shall pay the amount now due without delay and in full (including any penalty for failure to comply within the time frame previously allotted within said previous Notice(s)) If in the event that payment is not promptly received a private commercial Lien may be served on your 'person' and criminal charges/allegations of Misprision of Treason, unlawful harassment, criminal negligence and coercion shall be reported to the Police and or be evidenced in the proper manner in a properly convened Court de Jure.

N.B. ALL/ANY Notices, documents and evidence served on Chippenham Magistrates Court (incl; Karin Needham - Legal Advisor and Christine Murray - Justices' Clerk) must be filed into the JUDGES/MAGISTRATES RECORDS at ANY hearing with regards to this matter.

Without vexation, ill will or frivolity, whilst standing potentially liable without any admission of liability whatsoever and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with all my natural, inalienable, indefeasible rights reserved and, that I waive all benefits and privileges presumed.

David: Robinson (family)- (Living man & agent to the Legal Fiction).
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:27 pm

These drafts were corrected before sending i.e. Notice of non Response as apposed to - Notice of default etc and the other obvious typos.
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby treeman » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:39 pm

treeman wrote:The legacy of Elizabeth Beckett was sown wisely. :yes: :peace:

I reiterate. Namaste brother :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby kenb » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:13 pm

Nice work Dave :yes: :peace:
Peace, luv and light :sun:
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:31 pm

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Jaid0gz » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:04 pm

So this matter has been completely absolved?

That must have been a very vexing procedure to have to make so many claims and such

It must of taken you an excessive amount of time for those responses to have been made :s
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:53 am


Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest