A brief summary from our founder

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

A brief summary from our founder

Postby treeman » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:33 pm

From our founder Veronica of the Chapman family,




Some of you will know some of this.

Some of you will know all of this.

Some of you won’t know every much about this.

First and foremost, there is “Law” and there is “Legal”. The only LAW (in England and Wales) is The Common Law. This comes from our innate Common Sense on “how to live together in peace with our neighbours”.

It was first documented – to some extent – in 1215 – in a document called the Magna Carta. Halsbury’s Laws of England states that quite clearly, and refers to the Magna Carta 1215 as the founding document of the British Constitution.

Do NOT be fooled by the Magna Carta STATUTE of 1297. This is a pale imitation of the 1215 TREATY … and anything the 1297 Statute leaves out/ignores … is still in the 1215 Treaty!

In Law (i.e. the Common Law) Truth is Sovereign. It is the most important thing. That’s why, in a Common Law Court, with a Jury … the Jury is only allowed to hear FIRST-HAND knowledge, and has to swear to “Tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth”. On pain of perjury, if they lie. This system can never be 100% … but it is the best we can do in order to ascertain The Truth.

Because only by ascertaining The Truth, do the guilty get their just desserts, while the innocent go free.

Even today, in High Courts and Crown Courts, we have observed great emphasis, and due diligence, in these aspects of the application of Law.

The only problem, in point of fact, with High/Crown Courts, is that the Judges think they can “direct the Jury to a Verdict”. This is the only bit when it all goes wrong. The British Constitution defines a Jury verdict as sacrosanct and “untouchable” … because the Jury is “making the Law” for that particular circumstance.

The Common Law – THE Law – can ONLY be made by Juries (after hearing VERBAL FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) OR by WRITTEN FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) in a Statement of Truth.

It is not possible “make Law” in any other way.

That’s Law … and LAWFUL. (Remember: The Truth is Sovereign)

Now we come on to “Legal”.

First of all, since the British Constitution and Common Law were ‘founded’ in 1215, then the first recognised “Parliament”, in 1295, was created UNDER The Common Law.

Thus ALL Parliaments exists UNDER The Common Law, and ARE SUBSERVIENT TO The Common Law.

Any Act/Statute that deviates from the principles of the British Constitution is NULL & VOID, in Law.

“Fixed Penalty Notices” are, therefore, null & void and totally UNLAWFUL, by definition … because the Magna Carta 1215 specifically says that “No property shall be removed from anyone - unless based on the Verdict of a Jury”.

Actually most of the Acts/Statutes, that have been passed by various Parliaments over the years, EITHER deviate from The Common Law (and are, therefore, null & void) OR they support The Common Law, and are thus REDUNDANT.

An Act of Parliament/Statute is “Legal”.

Whereas, in Law, Truth is Sovereign, in the case of “Legal” the Truth really doesn’t matter a damn. And that's what makes "Legal" and "Lawful" complete OPPOSITES.

Magistrates so-called ‘Courts’ and County so-called ‘Courts’ operate in “Legal” and – within that room – The Truth doesn’t matter a damn. All that matters is ONE or THREE PSYCHOPATH’S INTERPRETATION of “Legals/Rules” – which will be bent out of as much shape as may be necessary – in order to screw you and rubber-stamp AGAINST you. (The reason is: Instead of standing up for yourself, you should be rolling over, and playing dead … just like they expect you to. And, if you don’t, they will fucking-well make sure that you roll over and play dead!)

Magistrates ‘Courts’, and County ‘Courts’ are no more “Courts of Law” than a Tennis Court or a Squash Court. In point of fact they are (what is known as) Star Chambers. Historically, a Star Chamber was where you were taken in order to have your life destroyed by a Psychopath. The room would have a Star painted on the ceiling. “Star Chambers” are actually banned (and have been for a very long time) … so they call them a “County” or “Magistrates” Courts.

Clever innit? All they need are “words” … and one thing they are is Master Wordsmiths.

You cannot be in “Contempt of Court” in a Magistrates or County Court … simply because it’s not a Court. IN POINT OF FACT, the functionaries of the Star Chamber (Judge, Magistrates, Clerk, Security, Usher etc.) are THOROUGHLY GUILTY of Contempt of a REAL Court (of Law).

I saw a recent email wherein a Police Sergeant had written to someone as follows:

“The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution. The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament). The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.”

That is a complete load of bollocks, and shows that the Sergeant knows very little about Constitutions, and even less about Law. And someone on this list will be telling the Sergeant so).

The FACTS are:

Constitutions are fundamentally FIXED, and INVIOLATE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THEM! In order to modify the Constitution (something a Nation always does with extreme care & caution), it is necessary to hold a Constitutional Conference ... whereby ALL aspects of the Constitutional Amendment are very carefully considered by Constitutional EXPERTS (not 630+ poxy MPs!). It has already been said that "One tampers with a Constitution at one's extreme risk".

When was the last time you heard of the convening of a Constitutional Conference? You didn't hear of one? Well, that would be about right, because there hasn't been one in my lifetime, either.

Consequently, the Constitution stands as written, and I suggest the Police Sergeant (a) Reads it very carefully, and (b) Starts to abide by it ... instead of expecting it to morph into whatever he - or Parliament - currently desire it to be.

"Parliament has nothing whatsoever to do with the British Constitution. (Do you SERIOUSLY think we could leave Constitutional matters to the 630+ expenses-fiddling jokers in the House of Commons?????) .

"Parliament" was created UNDER the Common Law. And was, therefore, created UNDER the British Constitution - the founding document for the Constitution (according to Halsbury's Laws of England) being the Magna Carta 1215.

"Parliament" is, therefore SUBSERVIENT TO the Common Law and the British Constitution. This means that - if any Act of Parliament is passed that contravenes the British Constitution, then that Act is NULL & VOID in LAW

I’ve already given the example of Fixed Penalty Notices which contravene the Common Law and thus the British Constitution. Therefore any implementation of that Act is a CRIMINAL ACT

… FACT!

Now let’s come to the recent case in Worcester. The Judge (Nigel Cadbury) was taken on, a parlayed with. As usual he ignored everything that was said to him, and declared the action (by Guy: of the Taylor family) to be ‘vexatious’. Well, Guy was a bit miffed about another so-called Judge (QC/Purple Robe) attempting to take away Guy’s INALIENABLE Rights. “INALIENABLE” means “IN-A-LIEN-ABLE”, in other words to be capable of being in Commerce.

During this so-called “Hearing-when-no-one-was-actually-Listening”, Cadbury claimed (and this is the second time he’s claimed it in our presence) to “have Common Law Jurisdiction”.

This shows he knows absolutely NOTHING, and here’s the reason why:

Putting aside the fact that Statutes aren't "Law" ... it is IMPOSSIBLE for a SINGLE HUMAN BEING to have "Common Law jurisdiction".

Why?

Because: England & Wales are "Common Law jurisdictions" ... which means that the Common Law applies in those two COUNTRIES.

A COUNTRY can BE 'a Common Law jurisdiction'.

But the application of the Common Law requires a Jury. In other words ... if a COUNTRY IS "a Common Law jurisdiction", then crimes are determined by TWELVE HUMANS ... called a Jury ... or by Statements of Truth signed under pain of perjury.

"Common Law jurisdiction" is something a COUNTRY IS (or IS NOT)

"Common Law jurisdiction" is not something that any single Human Being can 'have'.


The whole point about the Magna Carta 1215 Treaty, was to take “making the Law” OUT of the hands of ONE SINGLE PERSON (i.e. the King, or his subordinates, the Sheriffs and their lackeys the Bailiffs - or some other Tyrant), and place “making the Law-of-the-Land” in the hands of 12 ‘impartials’ i.e. “a Jury of one’s peers”.

The idea (and it was a good idea) is that The Law is all about “living in peace with one’s neighbours” and a Jury would have a good idea how that was done, by simply listening to their in-built Common Sense.

If the Jury – having heard all the evidence & circumstances – reckoned that they would do the same thing themselves – in those same circumstances – then the Accused was NOT guilty. If the Jury reckoned that the Accused “shouldn’t have done that … because they, themselves, wouldn’t have done that”, then the Accused was guilty of a crime.

And this took the whole thing out of the hands of some Psychopathic King (or his Courtiers/psychopathic craven suck-ups).
Grand Juries

The “Creators of Legals” (i.e. “Parliament”) cannot get rid of Grand Juries, and so in the early 1930s they ‘subsumed’ them. They subsumed the idea of a Grand Jury in favour of Magistrates Star Chambers, and the forerunners of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – and a certain amount of interaction from Police Forces.

Which means that we are back to a few naïve or psychopathic people who can determine who actually gets prosecuted, and for what, and how. (We are back to “The Rule of Man”, rather than “The Rule of Law”).

However, Grand Juries are NOT dead. They are a Common Law mechanism, and can be ‘resurrected’ to replace Magistrates Star Chambers & the CPS.

Then one could place a Complaint to the Foreman of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury has the power to DEMAND ANY INFORMATION THEY REQUIRE (“National Security” would not count/be irrelevant - BECAUSE A GRAND JURY DELIBERATES/DISCUSSES IN SECRET!), in order to determine whether or not someone should be indicted on the basis of the Complaint. The original idea was a Grand Jury of 23, such that a Majority Verdict of 12 was possible. On the basis of a Majority of 12, someone would be indicted, and stand Trial in front of the regular (Pettit) Jury of 12 … who would have to reach a unanimous Verdict in order to convict.

That was the system (and is still the system in America).

And there is no reason why it shouldn’t be the system once again. Members of the Grand Jury would need to be elected, and thus accountable - such that if they fail to honour Complaints made to them, they can be chucked out for failure to do their job. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NON-PAID POSITION (i.e. expenses only) in order to reduce the possibilities for 'back-handers'.

(Right ... that's enough from me ...!)

Veronica
April 22nd 2012
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

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

Re: A brief summary from our founder

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm

The only part of the above I do not agree with is the second sentence: "This comes from our innate Common Sense on “how to live together in peace with our neighbours”

I simply do not believe, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest, that the common law is based on our innate common sense. Most people wouldn't know common sense if it jumped in front of them and did a tango. Furthermore, getting a bunch of people to agree on what constitutes "common sense" becomes less and less likely the more people you involve and the more complex the scenario being debated. The history of our species, the endless conflicts, is evidence that the vast majority of people have very little innate common sense indeed. Let's face it, if they did, would we be discussing the issues that we do on this forum? Probably not.

But the point I am making is really a minor one. Whatever the origins of the common law, it is what it is and a good thing too.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: A brief summary from our founder

Postby treeman » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:11 pm

I had occasion to write this recently, and decided I might as well spread it around.

Some of you will know about this, because you've thought it through.

Some of you won't have thought things through like this.

"Legal" = The Rule of MAN (the one interpreting the Rule, at any point in time ... usually a Police Officer or a Judge or a Magistrate ... but can be anyone from any 'Official' body ... e.g. Local Council ... 'The Man' being capable of making up his interpretation on-the-fly ... if the Man is a bit 'thick', then his interpreation is likely to be absurd ...)

"Lawful" = The Rule of LAW ... only ever decided on the basis of TRUTH ... either by Juries or Affidavits. Always based on FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, stated or written under penalty of perjury..

And what was the thrust of the Magna Carta 1215? Well ... it was to REMOVE The Rule of Man (usually in the form of the King i.e. "tyranny") ... and replace it The Rule of Law.

Hence the British Constitution is founded on the Rule of Law ... not The Rule of Man.

And, isn't that precisely what's gone wrong? The Constitution has been subverted, and we don't have The Rule of Law ... we have The Rule of Man (whichever one happens to be standing in our way at the time)?

('Justice' can NEVER occur repeatedly when it's all down to the whims of The Man ... who usually makes a living out of it. Far and away to much scope for corruption. 'Justice' can only occur when 12 people - who don't particularly want to do the job - have unanimously declared a Verdict. That creates the Rule of Law. It's all Common Sense really. So why do we put up with anything less?).

Veronica xxx
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

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


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron