This made me feel fabulous. A Hereford court;
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... ocked.html
Re: Hereford Magistrates Court 17th Oct, 2011
Postby treeman » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:48 am
Wednesday, 26 October 2011.
Dear Honourable Judge Cadbury,
I write with reference to the Hearing I attended on Monday 17th October 2011 in Hereford Magistrates Court, in relation to my friend called Guy: (of the family Taylor).
First of all I would like to express my gratitude that you obviously made a considerable effort to understand the background to the Hearing. At one point you actually said you had spent the weekend reading up beforehand.
This letter will not compromise you in any way, because I do not intend to discuss the specifics of the cases, nor the judgments you eventually made.
The entire reason for this letter is to appraise you of the ‘bigger picture’ in terms of the ‘Freeman-on-the-Land position’, which you appeared to wish to understand in greater depth.
Everything I state, or assert, herein is capable of being checked out and thus proved as ‘factual’. Thus I am not stating opinions, but verifiable facts. (I can supply links to references as necessary, however I have not supplied them here in order to ensure they don’t clutter up the arguments. I think you will understand that most of what I say is entirely Common Sense, anyway).
For clarity, I’ve broken it down into sections, each with its own heading.
The Judicial Oath
You suggested, inter alia, that your Judicial Oath provided you with jurisdiction under both the Common Law and what you call ‘Statute Law’.
Allow me, if I may, to go back into English History. The Magna Carta was created in the year 1215, at Runnymede, between the Barons (representing The People), and the Monarch at the time (King John). It was a TREATY … was it not? And has this TREATY (i.e. not ‘Statute’) has now wound its way down English History to become The Coronation Oath, taken by Queen Elizabeth II in 1953?
Is this Coronation Oath, which she solemnly swore to uphold, not 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?
I think an astute person, such as yourself, may like to consider that argument?
And does the Judicial Oath – which emulates the Coronation Oath – not simply support her Coronation Oath? By swearing allegiance to her, and swearing to uphold what she swore to uphold?
Here’s another thing to consider, sir: Is it possible to give – to someone else – what you (yourself) do not possess? Are we free to give away someone else’s property? I suggest that the answer to that is a most obvious “No. You can only give away what is yours to give”.
Thus, if Queen Elizabeth II was given the Sovereignty to provide her with the means to protect us all, including or via the “laws and usages of the realm”, then where did that Sovereignty come from? It must have come from a source that was capable of providing it. The only ‘source’ I can think of is “The People”. Thus “The People” (and that includes everyone) must (by definition) be Sovereign. Because only under those circumstances can we give Sovereignty to the Queen.
Is that not so?
[I should possibly point out – at this point – the Irish twigged this aspect in 1916 – and in 1919 wrote the Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of Eire on that basis – namely that each Irishman and Irishwoman is Sovereign. Perhaps I could also point you in the direction on the United States, where “the Sovereignty of The People” is recognised and was intrinsic to the construction of the US Constitution. So – it’s not as though we haven’t had the directional-pointers, is it?].
Now, may we return to 1215? There was no Parliament in 1215. The concept of a ‘Parliament’ had not been invented in 1215. It was not until 1295 that the first recognised Parliament (the Model Parliament) came into being – some 80 years after the Magna Carta. Thus, when the Magna Carta 1215 refers to “the law-of-the-land” how could it possibly be referring to Statutes (i.e. Acts of Parliament)?
I suggest that when the Magna Carta 1215 refers to “the law-of-the-land/realm” it can only be referring to one thing, namely “the law-of-the-land/realm” (which is also known as The Common Law”).
[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 bind 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].
And, since the Coronation Oath is firmly based on the Magna Carta Treaty 1215, it carries with it the Judicial Oath.
And that provides Judges with Common Law Jurisdiction.
But – what IS Common Law jurisdiction? It is the ability to control (i.e. ‘run’) a Common Law Court, I suggest. (A “constitutionally-convened” one, to quote Lord Diplock, in 1974).
And what IS a Common Law Court?
We go back to the Magna Carta 1215 to answer that question., and we read that it comprises “a Jury of one’s equals”. I think we can reasonably take that to mean a Jury of twelve Human Beings – irrespective of so-called ‘social standing’ - provided they start off by being impartial. (I think that’s the best we can do, in practice).
So, 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 Judicial Oath of Office.
Would you, sir, argue that is not the case? That it is not what the Judicial Oath is actually saying?
(I deal with ‘Statute Law jurisdiction’ later in this letter).
Further Notes regarding the Magna Carta 1215
Please also note that the Magna Carta Treaty 1215 covers itself, by stating – quite categorically - that anything designed to water down its provisions (for example the Magna Carta Statute of 1297) is NULL & VOID in Law.
It also implicitly says that it is every Englishman’s DUTY to REFUSE to obey unfair or unjust rules. This is the ‘sense’ behind Article 61 – 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.
(Note: My underlining. It does NOT say that the Judiciary/HMCS get the Right to choose between “Trial By Jury” or “the law-of-the-land”. Thus this is the Accused’s choice as much as anyone’s. Could it be considered to be mirrored by an Accused’s 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?)
And there is 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”
(Reminder: In 1215 there was no ‘Statute Law’, only the Common Law-of-the-Realm).
A Statute is defined as “The Legislated Rule 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 one is a Name (by which the Society can 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 or not they are “like-minded”?). And the third characteristic is “a Membership”.
And there are some very important aspects to “Membership”, are there not?
1. Membership needs to be applied for. And entirely by Free Will, surely? (as opposed to “by deception” e.g. “C’est Que Vie Trust”?).
2. And Membership must be applied for by the individual who makes the application for him/herself? (Is it possible for someone to join someone else as a Member?)
3. And Membership always carries with it the ability to later RESIGN (without recriminations!) if the Society is later seen to be moving in a direction a Member disagrees with.
So, if a Freeman-on-the-Land is a member of the Society for which Acts of Parliament are the Legislated Rules, such that the Judicial Oath provides you with “Statute Law jurisdiction” over them, then:
A. What is the Legal Name of ‘the Society of the Parliamentary Statutes’?
B. Where are the Membership Applications? The forms … the Application Forms … and were these applications successful?
C. Where/What are the stated “common goals”?
D. Where/What is the method for resignation?
The application of “Legislated Rules” on NON-Members is an oxymoron. (It’s actually a CRIMINAL act).
Consider asking a Barrister if he or she is bound to obey the Hippocratic Oath and the Rules of the BMA. I think the Barrister will say “I obey the Legislated Rules of the Law Society, and the Civil Procedure Rules, etc”.
Consider asking a Doctor if he or she obeys the Legislated Rules of the Law Society. I think the Doctor will say “Those rules don’t apply to me. I’m bound by my Hippocratic Oath, and the rules of the BMA”.
Ask your Postman if he or she is bound by the Legislated Rules of the Law Society or the BMA.
And maybe sir, you may see my point? Would it be a criminal act to apply the Law Society’s Legislated Rules against your Postman or your Window Cleaner?
Dear Judge Cadbury, is the essence of this not consent? Is the essence that, by joining a Society (of one’s own 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 - surely it is as simple as that?)
So, when it comes to Statutes aka Legislated Rules, it requires consent to be bound by them.
How is this ‘consent’ obtained within the current mechanisms?
The answer is: BY DECEPTION. BY INTIMIDATION. BY AUTHORATERIANISM.
And this deception where it all goes wrong.
[Which is why I initially argued with you about where I would sit on the 17th October. I thought you were being dictatorial – as we have come to expect in Her Majesty’s Courts. In the light of your subsequent conduct of the case, I unreservedly apologise for my outburst].
My friend, Guy, read out a quotation from Halsbury’s Laws of England, indicating that Administrative Courts have no place in Law.
This is true, but Administrative Courts do have a function.
If they 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’. While, on the one hand, your conduct on the 17th was undoubtedly trustworthy, unfortunately the same thing cannot be said for many of your colleagues.
And that’s the fundamental problem.
[You said, at one point – and somewhat wryly - that “You might go to jail”. There is no risk of that, sir, if you have obtained the Free Will consent of BOTH Parties. And if you freely declare that you are NOT acting under your Common Law Judicial Oath, but are simply acting as an Arbitrator in accordance with the freely-obtained consent of both Parties. In that case there could be no criticism of you, and your judgements would remain entirely honourable. And furthermore, there is a way around all this … see “Amnesty”, below].
There is no such thing as ‘Statute Law’, for the simple reason that Statutes are not Law. They are Legislated Rules aka ‘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 & 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 Laws), Boyle'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 because they cannot be broken.
2. The Common Law i.e. considered "lawful" by Freemen:
a) Mankind does make them, based entirely 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 'judgment' – generally of one single Human (not 12!). It is often said "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 unrealistic.
However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are each the exact inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word, “Law”, is used to describe them in common parlance. This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both "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 characteristic… without any entitlement whatsoever to that characteristic.
With respect, sir, “The Law can give rise to a FICTION, but a FICTION cannot give rise to Law” is a maxim.
‘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 this mechanism are REAL, of course, and have DNA which can uniquely identify them.
Try extracting the DNA of “a Parliament”, you won’t get very far, because it is a fictional entity, and has no DNA.
So … are we now in agreement with the FACT that “Parliament” is a FICTION?
If we are, then can we examine its “ability to create Law”?
Here’s a Law – Newton’s First Law of Motion “A body continues in a state of rest or uniform motion, unless acted upon by some external force”.
That’s a Law. It cannot be broken.
Let’s translate that into the ‘Human Condition’ … it would be “A Human continues in the state of NOT TRAVELLING/MOVING, or in the state of TRAVELLING/MOVING, unless acted upon by some external force”.
So can “Parliament” do anything about that? If it could, then it could create Law. If it can’t, then it cannot create Law. How about Parliament creating a Statute that said “No-one must move, and everyone must stand in one place for their entire lives, unless acted upon by an external force”. Can you imagine that working, sir?
How about a Statute that said: “Things must fall up … not down”?
Well, dear sir, Parliament has to be able to do things like that, if it can “make Law”.
Let’s take something else … how about the Wireless Telegraphy Act? The TV Licencors utilise this Act to say that “You must have a licence even if to have an Aerial” . Because that is a precursor to watching TV or listening to the Radio.
What is “an Aerial”?
It is a “conductor of electricity”.
What is “a conductor of electricity”?
Well … far example … something that is 80% water that contains impurities … is a “conductor of electricity”, and thus “an Aerial”.
I’ve just defined “a Human Being” as “an Aerial”. If we weren’t capable of “conducting electricity”, then the American Death Penalty (“Electric Chair”) wouldn’t work.
In point of fact I could go on endlessly. I could readily tear the vast majority of Statutes to shreds, in this same way. In point of FACT, Statutes fall into two categories:
1. Ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd, if one ever takes the time & trouble to test them against (real) Law, and
2. Those which (fundamentally) duplicate the Common Law.
In case (1) they can be ripped to shreds, and are (thus) redundant. In case (2) they only duplicate what already exists in real Law, and are thus redundant.
These Statutes have never been torn to shreds in front of you, sir? No sir, a Barrister won’t be capable of doing that (or possibly to some small degree … called ‘a legal loophole’). A Barrister is not a Physicist, Chemist, Engineer, Technician etc. In my case, I can drive a bus through them, and smash them to smithereens.
And, furthermore, “Parliament” has been in business since 1297.
I count that as about 718 years (in gestation, as it were).
In order to ‘get it right’.
How much longer do they want?
It is very simple. They cannot ‘get it right’, and they will NEVER ‘get it right’, because A FICTION CANNOT MAKE LAW. Only the 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”.
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 judgments (High or Low). Truth depends on one thing only – FACT and FACTs.
And the Truth is that the Magna Carta 1215 does not recognise Statutes (Historic FACT). And 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 related 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) 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. Once more, this is Historic FACT.
Consequently all Statutes must defer to the Common Law - as said Statute’s ‘superior’. Reversing this argument, Statutes are, and must always remain, INFERIOR to the Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land/Law-of-the-Realm.
This is precisely why 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 Judge’s 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 in which fraud can be perpetrated).
As my friend Guy said “This is not Egypt, nor Libya, etc. This is England. And we do things the English Way”. (The recent rioting plays no part in this, as far as we, in Lawful Rebellion, are concerned. That’s not the English Way. We had our Civil Wars a long time ago. That’s over and done with).
I apologise for the length of this letter but you seemed to be quizzical about the Freeman-on-the-Land position, and I hope I have clarified a lot of it.
Is it not a truism that – eventually – it’s all about “money” (at the end of the day)?
I think so.
So … what IS “money”?
We can answer that by realising that it is just another word for “credit”. And if we check a Dictionary, we find “credit” is defined as “faith placed in something”. Thus “money” is merely “faith placed in something”.
And where do we keep our faiths?
In our heads, I suggest.
“Money” is – thus and by definition – a CONCEPT. Actually an ILLUSION.
Who says so? HM Treasury said as much in a Freedom of Information request I made a few years ago.
And, in their First Quarterly Bulletin for 2008, the Bank of England said so. Their bulletin can be found on-line as a PDF File, and PDF Page 105, bottom-left paragraph says:
"...banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money."
[Please recall all the furore, in the autumn of that same year, about ‘bank bailouts’. Was this not all just the banks “writing a few more cheques on themselves”? And surely this is just a polite way of saying “money is actually created out of thin air”. So a ‘borrower/borrowing customer’ is ‘borrowing’ precisely what? “Thin air” is the answer … they are ‘borrowing’ thin air. But “Their home is at risk if they don’t keep up their Mortgage Payments” based, or course, on an original ‘loan’ created out of thin air].
May we think this through just a little bit further?
If the Queen is empowered (by The People) to provide a Royal Charter for the Bank of England to “write cheques on itself”, why cannot the Queen simply empower HER Government (as she calls it), to create “the money” itself?
Then Her Government would not need to borrow from any Bank. And Her Government would not need to pay anyone any Interest.
Perhaps the answer to this conundrum lies in the actions of two American Presidents – Lincoln and Kennedy – who both did PRECISELY what I’ve suggested above. (I’m sure I don’t need to draw any further parallels between these two Presidents – suffice to say “Banks can’t take kindly to being left out of the equation”).
Nevertheless, the questions still remain.
And one final thing which you, sir, may have not considered (but it comes back to Mortgage Repayments and Home Repossessions).
Within the “money-creation mechanism” – as described and defined by the Bank of England (you need to read between the lines to pick this out) – the ‘Capital’ or ‘Principal Amount’ is brought onto a computer database (by the Bank “writing a cheque on itself”). BUT NOWHERE IN THIS MECHANISM IS ANY AMOUNT EVER CREATED TO PAY ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER.
No Interest Amounts have ever been created, nor ever would be, under this stated mechanism. It’s a recipe for ultimate failure aka Home Repossessions.
So – where does the Interest come from? I suggest that Peter always has to be robbed in order to pay Paul. Or, putting it another way, those who remain out of bankruptcy/keep their home always do so by climbing on the backs of those who enter bankruptcy/lose their home.
Unless, of course, sir, you have other explanations?
Finally, sir, I come to the end of my tirade/rant, which I sincerely hope you do find informative. And I hope you read it in the same spirit in which it was written, insofar as I am not criticising your good self, nor am I blaming your good self for anything.
My friends and I are seriously considering offering an Amnesty to the Judiciary – under the proviso that they fully clean up their act, and cease and desist from the intimidation tactics forthwith. That, in order to gain our respect, they offer some respect to us, in return.
Albert Einstein said “You cannot solve a problem with the same mentality that created it”. All of the foregoing may (or may not) have been looked at by Higher Courts. However, did they look at it with “the same mentality that created the problems in the first place”? Quite probably, I suggest. Simply because “the mentality that created the problems” is so very deeply ingrained. If that same mentality was used, then the resolutions will forever remain a mystery.
I suggest, and submit, that the mentality I have utilised herein is NOT the “same mentality that created the problems” but is, instead, “a mentality, based on Facts & Fundamental Truths, designed to resolve the problems”.
Martin Luther King: “On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.”
Freemen-on-the-Land stand simply because “It is the right thing to do”.
While, on the one hand, I would be most interested to learn your views on this, I assume that you would consider yourself to be compromised by commenting (so I won’t hold my breathe waiting for any response).
Yours sincerely without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,
Veronica: of the family Chapman
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest