|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:53:25 GMT
Martin Davies Probation Huddersfield
The law really says... That a Claimant of a right should have it recognised by the prosecution.
It doesn't need to be given representation at court or proved or appealed at court by the Claimant.
If the Claimant has reasonable evidence / validation of the right... It is required for the prosecution to recognize and act on that.
And as it can be used in (any) proceedings.. there is no bar to any instance or proceedings where is cannot be used. It's the reason..so that it can be upheld at any point it needs to be recognized or if there has been a failure of it being recognised previously at any stage.
1. Observations on behalf of the House of Lords Authority's
2. First Amendment right to a remedy
3. The recent anne sacoolas case of Diplomatic immunity
4. The Criminal damage act 1971 section 5
This is the most important realization though....
That because it IS the legal requirement of the prosecution to recognition of the right laid claim to by the Claimant..
It therefore cannot be expected that with a reasonable valid representation for a right... that it would be the defendant come Claimant who were responsible for presenting it, or having it presented.
Because any advocacy or representation at a court on behalf of the Claimant of the right... by a 3rd party solicitor or barrister.. would completely bypass the prosecutor come respondent.
As if it was not the prosecutions legal requirement to recognize the right at all.
And because it IS the legal requirement and responsibility of the prosecution come respondent to recognize the right of the Claimant..when there is a valid right presented.. they they must act in recognition of that right and the implications and legal effect of that right.
If a representation of a right is successful.. or even if it has reasonable chance of success and succeeds.. Without being recognised by the prosecutor.. The prosecutor has failed in the overriding objectives.
Very important ones at that.
So really... the proper and correct solution where there is a right claimed... is not appeal by the defendant come Claimant at all.
It is only to obtain a representation or material to reasonably prove the validity of the right to the prosecutor come respondent..
And the rest is the full responsibility of the prosecution for representation and effect to the remedy.
Because the prosecution are supposed to be unbiased and under employment in the public interest to recognize the rights.
Thus when a University Associate Professor in law, with a full research team published a 65 page paper that validates a right for both American and the United Kingdom, it must be taken seriously and considered valid and legitimate.
Particularly when it is no ordinary right, but "The Right to Petition" which is a right that makes all prosecutions illegal against the Claimant of the right. With the same Privileges in context of their work and actions as the Bill of Rights Grant's The House Of Lords. To which protections have been validated at Crown Court level and cannot be challenged in a lower court.
And under the overriding objectives.. the Crown Prosecution service already failed to uphold the objectives in the Lord Hanningfield and regina case...
Because if it is the Court, a Judge, Magistrates or a Jury who left to recognize and validate a right...
The prosecution surely did not only fail, failed to recognize it but failed to protect the rights of the defendant come Claimant ...
They in fact put their own personal motivations above the fundamental rights of the democracy itself.
Which cannot be the proper conduct or procedure expected of the Crown Prosecution Service
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:54:18 GMT
The entire premise and legal facts of principle in the "First Amendment Right to a remedy" which covers both English and American Right to petition..
Is that there is a Right to access and be offered a remedy as well as obtaining it.
Section 7,1b Human Rights act..
The Right itself can BE relied upon in any proceedings.
There must be access to those proceedings. There is a right to have access to those proceedings and it is for the Claimant to decide what proceedings are appropriate and best. And Right. There can be no limitations.
The Court staff cannot Bar access to a process and engagement in any proceedings..
To re-open a case or have it looked at again by "that court".
It is not for the Claimant to be forced to appeal. A different court. Nor injunction..
There is a right to access, use and engage in the remedy of the court where the dispute resides.
The Human Rights act makes this clear.
And going further than merely a right "can" be relied upon in respect to any proceedings..
Any proceedings can be requested and the Right itself IS the enforceable authority.
There is authority of the Claimant. You overlook what that right IS.
The right itself is Authority and Power to enforce its effect.
And it is right of access to process and procedures.. More so... it professes that there is no prosecution in the first place. There is no case, was no case from the prosecution and that .. There was no offence.
There is nothing to appeal against.
This is proved at Southwark Crown court already.
The First Amendment Right to a remedy, applies the same exact protection in the same manner for petitions who are not Lords.
All immunity is of the same effect and applicable the same.
Diplomatic immunities and Parliamentary immunities.. Are originating from the same Bill of Rights.
Foreign Diplomats are here doing work for their government. It is in connection with that Government which is the reason they are here. Even the spouse of a diplomat their presence is in connection with their partners presence.
Now driving is covered by this. The latest news story this week confirmed it.
And the charges against me are covered. No question about it.
Now this letter, this work this document I am typing now..
Is equal and of correctness to the work by Benjamin Plener Cover and by Jeremy Johnson QC.
This IS the proceedings. I am representing as the claimant.
And you are not only discriminating against my work, my time, my intelligence and my correct understanding..
You are acting to deprive me of a right. You are stealing not only my right, but the access to a remedy.. by having the case re-opened, or by having the Duty Solicitors act to have the crown prosecution service sign the undertaking forms I have submitted.. before the court.. to agree they will provide all of the legal representatives and work to have the charges against me remedied. Which is a legal obligation and requirement.
There are proceedings going on in relation to this case. Probation service proceedings.. And there are numerous other proceedings I have right to access.
In a matter of the Highest possible seriousness and law.. Bill of Rights protections.. where there are no greater priorities than the part 1 to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005.
There is no other more important requirement than to recognize this Right I have claimed.. Most ancient and serious as to protect me to investigate the police, courts and Crown Prosecution service themselves.. Free from legal injustices and injury from those public authority's
I am a political undertaking. A body a group of signatures acting with authority in Connection with petitions that are partly funded by parliament..
And it falls under public and parliamentary authority by which I act. This is contained in the definition and extent of "prosecutor" Particularly in the discontinuation rules for both Civil and Criminal Procedure for discontinuation.
I am the Claimant against the other party. They are responsible, for the illegal prosecution and are respondent to the undertaking I have set out.
Which can be put before the court.
In all and any proceedings, proposed or ongoing in relation to any aspect of this case. Including all probation service proceedings.. Agreement and engagement.
I am not wrong about this.
I am not appealing to the Crown court. Appeal is to a court.
I have dispute with the crown prosecution service. They are respondent under legal objectives of responsibility. Binding
This has nothing to do with appeal.
Its is about the Crown Prosecution service recognizing a right. Being made to. And being liable to resolve the issue themselves.
There is no appeal or obligation to appeal what so ever by the Claimant.
Recognition occurs by prosecution and court when reading and understanding the First Amendment Right to a remedy..
And the Bill of Rights
It is not appealed for.
It is recognised and applied as soon as it is recognised immediately. Not at a time, date, hearing or place.
It is automatically of effect.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:55:24 GMT
Samantha Leek
In regards to Human Rights and understanding principles of why the prosecution should and must act. Because of a truth that.. if you can understand there is a claim. Then they should. More so.. the burden of recognition is on them.
The premise is, that if you are capable of recognizing my right. And acting for me....
Then the Prosecution with access to the same level standard of counsel should recognize it.
And they are supposed to be unbiased and fair.
And it's not any ordinary case or even criminal. its rights. I am Claimant... and they are respondent.
This particular right is that it is illegal to be prosecuted..
The major point being.. that they have no excuses to claim they can't recognize the right as valid.. When an Associate professor in law, with an entire world class research team has come to the same conclusions as I have.
The prosecution cannot claim they don't recognize that.
And it is an employment requirement, a public interest and legal obligation for them to recognize and act to make certain the court recognizes that right. And a remedy is obtained for injuries resulting from their illegal prosecution against me.
There is no appeal, no injunction required . As it is their Burden and full responsibility for the recognition of the right.
You refer cases to the Pro bono charity.. your chambers refer them..
You can identify that Bill of Rights protections.. should not be appealed to Crown Courts because as your colleague Jeremy Johnson proved.. A Crown Court & Jury cannot hear the case. So why would anyone appeal there from a magistrates court? the Right to Petition .. is the same in that all prosecutions are illegal and all commitments.
The First Amendment Right to a Remedy strongly sets out for us.. with extensive research supporting it.. that this petitioning parliament brings with it the very same protection. So the case cannot be appealed at a Crown court. And as the work sets out... The right is free and thus any representations and legal aid... More so... the fact that it's the prosecutions liability and responsibility to recognize the right.... Means that they naturally should and would cover the costs under that principle..
The Right can be relied upon in any proceedings. That is very very significant. The Human Rights act 1998 section 7(1)b Is so overlooked
It opens up the scope and application of access to all Duty Solicitors proceedings.. And assistance.. As well as the Crown Prosecution service.. and all referrals from Solicitors and Barristers. It means that there is a right to remedy through the section 142 of the magistrates court act 1980 to re-open cases... more so that they should not have issued a summons in the first place. The Crown Prosecution service have a Duty to re-open the case and discontinue or else have the right proved to the court & recognised Its not the burden of the Claimant. Only to make the claim. Not to facilitate recognition.
Though I have provided more than enough material for recognition.. I have myself set out that human Rights Barristers should refer themselves to the Crown Prosecution service to recognize the right of the Claimant.. because they have identified there is a right and a claim and identified it's the Crown Prosecution services obligation to recognize that right and facilitate it.. therefore the Barristers should refer themselves to the Crown Prosecution Service.. in the public interest of justice of the prosecution upholding the first overriding objectives of the Criminal Procedure rules.. part 1. 2c to recognize the rights... and what remedy comes with such recognition.
Therefore I requested that you refer yourself to the Crown prosecution service to act for me. Under public funding. Not legal aid. Or pro bono. But through an undertaking agreement that the prosecution will use your services to recognize my right valid and remedy the injury I have been subjected to and suffering.. And that really should be the way.. because petition is covered for on the undertaking forms.. And it's a claim of illegal prosecution against the other party. And to make them recognize the right and act themselves to the court... There should be absolutely no requirement for the Claimant to appeal to Crown Court.. with a Right to Petition protection claim.
Please refer me to the crown Prosecution service with you as my barrister.
As I have set out.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:56:42 GMT
Diplomatic immunity..
And all expressions in the Vienna convention need to be put into context of what they in fact ARE.
Which is literally an overseas extension of pre existing and obviously the same Privileges and protections as which apply within home borders.
That is... protections when conducting actions for the purposes of Government work and reasons. In connection with Parliament.
Therefore certain of Bill of Rights origin. The same as the Right to Petition.
Diplomatic immunity is without question an overseas extension of that same protection. In essence.
And protections to the same extent and reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 10:57:34 GMT
Judgments in context What has been judged? If anything And what could or could not have been judged? Was it a judgement or recognition required only. And if it was recognizable why wasn't it at the time?
When a prosecution case is brought it is supposed to have been done so with full competence and extent.
All of the evidence and facts brought.
And put before the court. A Judge or magistrate making a decision based on that evidence.
The point of an appeal to another court is undoubtedly for (a second opinion) or an opinion before a jury and higher authority.
It is not really for the purposes of bringing additional evidence or because there was evidence lacking or a defect in process.
Those reasons are in fact why cases can be re opened at a magistrates court. Or why prosecution can correct mistakes.
Now, when there was a Procedure rule, that the prosecution failed to fulfil.. Recognizing a right, for example. They must have researched that right.. to at least equal or greater standard than the other party...
If they "haven't " and are " not prepared " for a hearing.. How can they possibly have done anything to recognize that right??? They can't have.
Now, if the defendant (Claimant) of a right.. has not acquired advocacy or obtained the full literature of a right.. it cannot have been " fully recognized " by the court at all.
The situation is not one that has been even presented with capability of being recognised.
So it is absolutely not a 2nd opinion that we are looking for.
We are actually just still trying to get the full proper literature "heard" or "seen" understood... recognised.. Because there has been a failure of the other party.. or court ...some defects in the proceedings and preparations..
So appeal is not the scope of the reason there is an issue.
We are not looking for an opinion.
We are simply looking for a fair and proper hearing of the matter. And the other party to recognize the right.
Really there is no requirement for advocacy from the Claimant because the prosecution must recognize and uphold a right.... Not the court.. If a right is professionally set out on paper.... and its recognizable.. The prosecution should present it.
In fact should discontinue.
Any and every single time a Claimant proves a right is valid (to a court) a prosecutor has failed every one of those times to recognize it..
There should have been no challenge against it.. and it should not have been a courts business.
A prosecutor who tries to ignore a right.. even who assists a court to try to prove there are no rights.. or to collaborate with a court to deny or remove peoples rights.. strip them of them... is in breach of public interest. In fact is an enemy of democracy. And an agent of royalist hierarchy.
This brings to concern my own interpretation of the bill of rights illegal prosecutions from the kings bench being the ones referred to in the right to Petition... that protection is afforded from
|
|