|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 12:45:39 GMT
Wow, His Majestys declaration to all his loving subjects 1662 books.google.co.uk/books?id=-P1mAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=His+Majesties+declaration+to+all+his+loving+subjects,+December+26+1662&source=bl&ots=OglB3Le4Sj&sig=ACfU3U1WRhgd35Ybv1fbaIaVIJfbprr01Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7rZmJz4XnAhXSEcAKHfXzB_YQ6AEwCHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=His%20Majesties%20declaration%20to%20all%20his%20loving%20subjects%2C%20December%2026%201662&f=false This was written shortly after the death of Oliver Cromwell when the rule of the country returned to Royal Power. It's about 88 years before the Bill of Rights was drafted into effect. Clearly defines "The public" But also "all subjects" including both protestants and Catholics It also acknowledges many wrongdoings against the subjects and sets out promises and reform... pledges.. Not yet at that time the Right to Petition protection.. but it addresses religious freedoms to practice .. The Crown Prosecution Service should note that it also talks about " the good people should not have their understanding be mislead by the government... Note that reading and writing was not compulsory back then and normally only those who went to university or were educated by the church could read and write well.. Those fortunate to be educated would be the ones most aware of their rights. And those who could not read or learn would have been susceptible to being mislead by others.. even mislead by the government.. which it apologised for.. Note that over 80 years after this declaration.. in 1688 we still have strong references to evil ministers and judges. Note that a lot of travelling around the country was common for the Kings Bench. Travel, horse riding and driving carts or coaches has been an Integral part of not only justice.. but of petitioning parliament.. Riding, and driving is essential to engage in going about the work, conduct and engagement of petitioning.. not only to gather signatures but also to obviously engage in the subjects and cause and rally support.. So a driving licence would be essential in context.. to modern day petitioning Also note that "The public" at large can consist of various foreign visitors, traders, and so forth.. Where as "The Subjects" are those born and living in the Country, or common wealth under the rule of a particular King or Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 13:39:02 GMT
It's clear that The Associate Professor, Benjamin Plener Cover and his research team, have validated the Right to Petition for modern usage.
The University's teach and train, give Qualifications to and produce the Legal advisors who will be employed by the courts.
Their publications are for absorbing and use by the Government and courts.
Therefore the court legal advisors have no right or reason to reject the validity and legal effect of the Right to Petition in respect of the UK Citizens who lay documents that that are conducting real and valid petitioning undertakings to parliament.
The Right is not a defence or plea submitted in respect against any criminal charges..
Nor is there a civil contest between the accused and another party.. such as the Crown Prosecution Service or police chief.
The Right is claimed and put into effect of it's own legal power when claimed.
And courts, police, judges must recognise it and obey the law.
As with other rights.. it is completely independent from any order or judgment.
Rights are applied before between and after court proceedings wherever claimed and used..
Such as the right to a driving licence temporary pending appeal.
Or the Right to be relieved of requirement to work when injured or sick..
Rights are applicable by effect of law for the purposes they were created for.
They are not used through any ple, or contest. They can be used in court but it should not come to that when they are properly recognised and applied
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 14:18:21 GMT
The Subjects are people under the rule of a particular monarch. For example if you have a King of England and a separate Queen or King of Scotland or Ireland each monarch has respective subjects under their rule. www.rct.uk/collection/people/william-iii-king-of-great-britain-1650-1702#/type/subjectwww.rct.uk/collection/people/james-ii-king-of-great-britain-1633-1701#/type/subjectJames II and William III are clearly in some religious and authoritative conflicts.. it seems Cromwell was not the only one at odds.. the monarchy was in it's own conflict.. I don't need to prove this any further and the Court legal staff and Crown Prosecution service are being childish and retarded by any further ignorance of the legal effect and validity of the Right to petition and its mode of application free from any plea or contest trial or hearing. Because it protects us from them. The Right to petition is for religious as much as political cases and complaints to Parliament. By way of petitioning. Which is a clear established process and proceedings that invoke that right. I no longer wish to entertain the Crown Prosecution Service. They are wretched, childish, stubborn and I have met these people.. who are behaving and conducting themselves in pure contempt of the law to save their own sins. They refuse to admit fault and error on their part and as far as I am concerned.. They have abused their authority and position and betrayed the public. Justice will be done and they will be brought to justice for their sins and crimes against the public
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 15:24:24 GMT
I think this is the only issue with the CPS and Police..
I think that they "Want" and are "hoping" as well as really trying to believe..
That the "Right to Petition" only means that...
We are "allowed to petition" without being prosecuted...
It's only granting permission to be able to petition.
Yet petitioning is not an offence or illegal anyway in the first place. And never was.
So you don't need a law to invent or create it.
It would be like saying.. it is the right of the subjects to go to work and all commitments and prosecutions for doing so are illegal..
When... it's not illegal to work in the first place and we already have working existing and it wasn't a crime.
In respect of petitioning...
It is our right to do it and ALL prosecutions for doing so are illegal..
The CPS and Police are doomed to fail, because TO petition...
Its impossible to isolate any action from the sum of requirements in order to conduct petitioning...
It's not a single act.. it requires certain requisitions ...
Literally... when the police use the law to drive a police car "for the purpose it is being used" applying "police purposes"
Its impossible to separate the driving from the case and pursuit and investigation
It's an undertaking..
The CPS and Police hate the fact that.. petitioners get certain creative freedom in their political cause and endeavour.. Just as police choose their own line of action and investigations in their own affairs..
This really gets in the hair the the police.. because the petitioner has choice and will of action and direction to an extent.
And the fact of the matter is.. they don't need to justify it in a court room, prove it to a court or defend themselves by plea or civil contest because bringing litigation or charge is illegal against them..
Literally the CPS and Police could go bonkers thinking about this especially when the petition is concerning police enforcement concerns itself..
But it's the law. So they are going to have to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 16:49:06 GMT
What does the WORD "Authority" mean? "Authorize"
Author. (ize) (ity)
It is not constrained to "a person"
A district judge, a lieutenant or commander making or giving an order..
Law itself gives Authorization from the contracting party..
The permissions and effects are given in law and writing.. for effect independently from a Judge, a Police Chief officer even other ministers or a Lord Chancellor
It is by effect and powers granted in the Right itself by which Authority is given to those eligible to use such Rights.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 19, 2020 20:42:27 GMT
DVLA complaint, because they should comply to my notice irrespective of the Court who has no Jurisdiction in the matter
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 19, 2020 23:41:12 GMT
What he said. Lol
This is important because towards the end they focus on the reason James was not popular because the Government/King was ignoring laws to exhert power over the people and not upholding their rights and laws..
Also people were getting a lot of hassle from the Armies/kings soldiers as well...
Which today is the equivalent of us all being houded and attacked, trapped, tricked by the speed camera networks...
Even fast food strategy having a hold and negative influence over us.. strategically..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 21, 2020 2:16:50 GMT
Lord Hall is to step down from BBC...
Lord Grade... haven't watched this yet.. But I added some comments
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 21, 2020 14:04:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 21, 2020 15:48:42 GMT
Look....
This is well known and significant history
But you aren't seeing the relevance to the 1688 Bill of Rights being created by Orange
Cromwell get rid of Charles, And declares himself Lord Protector.
He is a strongly religious man, and his title chosen cannot ignore the Bilble's significance of having Jesus and God as our saviour and protector. Which he is clearly inspired by.
After Cromwell dies.. and James II comes in and the above quote is enacted on Cromwells body..
The people aren't happy with James II. He is not very popular in fact various religious atrocities follow.. concerning the church.. it's not just politics but religion..
I actually think that the public..
Were not happy with James for many reasons by the sounds of it...
If he had prosecuted and executed people maliciously then no wonder he was not popular.
If you were 10years old when Cromwell was in power... it's only another 30 years or so until William Orange comes in.
So most 40 and 50 year old people would still remember Cromwell strongly in their lifetime..
It's only the same as us now looking back at John Major as Prime Minister..
That sort of time frame.. or Margaret Thatcher even..
So it's all relevant..
I actually think.. that because of his unpopularity, its likely a family agreement that James left and Orange came in... because of the ease at which he got away.. it seems arranged.
And the Bill of Rights 1688 absolutely takes great meanings and inspiration of freedom religious and protection in fighting corruption.. From both the Bible and Cromwell both.
Made law. So that encourages people to support and like orange.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 21, 2020 16:42:51 GMT
Also, the fact that Orange apparently came in through the south coast.. sailed around..
To me.. is a gesture symbolic to 1066 Battle of Hastings.. because the idea is sort of absurd.. why bother?
All the way around? Seems like more of a symbol of acknowledgement to 1066 and the Place name Runnymeade ... is sort of a combination of beer/alcohol running, drinking and people taking the piss.
I think they knew 1066 couldn't have been blatant invasion due to literally an entire country of people and was more a hand over agreement..
And they did it as to leave a gesture..
It seems more likely to me
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 22, 2020 1:19:18 GMT
Pretty certain that "free exercise" means engage in without being punished... They clearly identify petitioning as a method of (the public) resolving issues between the government and themselves. Also religious issues and the right to openly address any subject freely. (Therefore no subject can be barred from petitioning about) And this petitioning can be exercised freely (I would presume without liability to punishment) for bringing such petitioning. It has to be "bridged" across from the Bill of Rights.. and in fact the bridge could be directly referring to the rights in the Bill of Rights being bridged across.. The Rights for religious freedom and Political petitioning rights..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 22, 2020 2:08:55 GMT
Well, fuck me I was just curiously looking for some information about what the public were upto while the English Civil War was going on, between the Roundheads and the Calaviers, The King and Cromwell.. Just to see what daily life was like.. And this National Archives page popped up. So Parliament and the committees should know all about this.. As it has a load of petitions attached to it and other letters.. and funny as I was thinking to look for some.. but didn't expect to find these.. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/women-english-civil-wars/www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/women-english-civil-wars/women-english-civil-wars-source-3/(Stamped by Her Majesty's state paper office) "Her Majesty" must be reference to the Queen Consort Extremely enlightening! Just what I was going to look for.. but was looking for something else What evidence did the Liverpool women have that their homes had been plundered? Probably would have been better with a smart phone video, photo evidence attached also Hope she wasn't prosecuted for it as pre 1688!
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 22, 2020 9:10:19 GMT
Another thing to think about, if there had been a lot of civillians suffering from the Civil War...
We don't usually think of them.
All we hear about are the battles between the Armies and Cromwell and the King..
We less often hear of and think about the public that suffered greatly during these war times...
They will have felt in danger, afraid, worried, distressed.
That they were not protected by the Government but that the soldiers and armies were a threat!
So no wonder Cromwell choose the title "Lord Protector" if it was to be any reassurance for them and their safety..
Especially with events such as this Liverpool petition sample (if it is legitimate)
So... in the same lifetime period of some of these people.. if they had been around 10 years old when the war was going on.... And reached 40 or 50 years old when Orange came to England...
The 1688 Bill of Rights could have been seen as reassurance and safety, to the public.. to the subjects..
That William orange was their protector, similarly to the title Cromwell claimed..
But instead of assuming that title himself.. Because he had the title "King".. he put the reassurance of protection into the 1688 Bill of Rights..
The Right to Petition protection. For Religious purposes as well as political and other grievances.
Protection from the courts.
It's likely that these evil ministers and judges referred to I'm the Bill of Rights are associated with the resolutions people were seeking from the Government... in only a 30 year time period.. there could have been many problems that people had following the wars.. and Parliament and the Courts may have been reluctant to square up with the public... And James II may not have had sympathy with many of them...
The Church was being prosecuted and was suffering as well..
So it's likely why the people were really not happy and nobody wanted another Civil War.. they likely had had enough of the fighting, physical battles, violence, plundering by Government forces..
So to avoid another war.. William Orange was likely brought in and James II Shipped out.. likely a family arrangement or plan.
The Bill was then drafted.
After all.. protection from the courts, when petitioning parliament was reassurance after times of immediate danger and wars all around the country. Irish, Scots armies as well wandering around...
Therefore.. it's clear that the people demanded rights. Religious and political rights. The Government had been evil and vicious.
Protection from being prosecuted was clearly important and it would not have been so ridiculous a thing to grant people.. when only a few years earlier people's homes were being plundered and surrounded by actual violence, wars, battles, conflicts of physical immediately danger.. Also people, ministers, public, church members being prosecuted or executed..
Really it is in fact a huge "Taming gesture " of a wild and vicious Government.
No wonder in today's modern world of relative peace, technology and altruism in the public forum... People are getting annoyed with being hounded and trapped, by this ridiculous speed camera trap network and people's jobs and lives ruined and in turmoil by the police forces.. who act like armies with weapons and laser guns, tasers...
When every day peaceful people are simply trying to get to work on a morning or get home on an evening...
The Bill of Rights protection.. from prosecution.. is really not a big deal. When people are officially submitting legitimate process of petitioning to Parliament, Government.. with all modern records and technology, internet... Education at their disposal..
The current Ministers.. MPs, Police Chiefs are bitter and cold.. to people's rights.
Jealousy I believe because they are a competitive order... working for rewards and medals and themselves...and have lost sight of the real power normal Citizens have... when they are not satisfied with the Government.. And take Up the Law to do something about it.
The Crown Prosecution Service should be ashamed of themselves.
Literally in a country that has over 90% of people getting along with peaceful modern life... and in contrast to the Civil War.. a very small amount of incidents in public..
The childish attitude and behaviour of police and Crown Prosecutors, MPs and Lords...
When they get carried away with themselves.. their power and titles..
They would go as far as denying our rights and freedoms that are there to keep THEM in check.... render them answerable to the public when there is serious redress of grievances against them..
They even use television and newspapers to manipulate public opinion.. such as the BBC prosecutors program... painting false images of the CPS and Police to cover up their failures...and unprofessional staff..
The media is a powerful tool of deception, when the Petition committee themselves have been lying to us and denying our rights.. Stealing our protections and ancient laws..
So that they can abuse us and take advantage and withhold our protections from the Government..
All it is, is protection. Simple protection yo enable petitioning
Why are the Government so awkward and stubborn to grant us our simple, lawful protection when we bring very serious matters properly... through legitimate means? For serious responsible resolutions?
Why does a Prime Minister ignore our rights? Why are Ministers now obsessed with television cameras crowds, and hair styles?
And not the peoples rights?
Why will Boris Johnson not admit and apply, respect and uphold the right to petition?
Why are we put in distress, worry, suffering from these Police and Prosecutors and Courts... and a simple right denied us?
All this money of lawyers and courts and large figure sums of money that are being required because of the Government itself.. It's own attacks against the public by police soldiers.. to fund armies of Highways workers.. building diabetes power lines of supply for food empires?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 22, 2020 10:46:11 GMT
The main retardation that annoys me, is the modern, current petitions committee, seem to somehow have their own narrow minded opinion... that "The Right to Petition" only creates or allows people to "Do" petitioning to the Government.
When petitioning is already well established and has never been unlawful.
So they didn't need a Bill to "give permission" for them to do petitioning, or to stop them being prosecuted just for submitting a petition..
As it was not unlawful to do it.
If the Subject, Cause or collecting of signatures was a matter that was in opposition to the King (or parliament if one was held) for example.. petitioning for Catholic or Protestant Church rules changed.. They might have been prosecuted then.. because it was in opposition to the Kings own religious faith.
Or if those Liverpool women had accused the plunder of their houses by Catholic soldiers.. they might have been prosecuted by The King..
But let's be clear about this. It was not prosecution for submitting a petition. And petitioning was not illegal..
It's the subject , the cause itself.. The opinion and will, the fact someone is in opposition in a cause to the Government that is protected and clearly all acts in connection with such a cause. Acts for those purposes..
If the Liverpool Women had been in Modern times, they could have taken evidence of the plundering, and even followed the Catholic soldiers on Horses.. (modern day car) filmed them, took photos, and even taken back possession of their own property from the Catholic soldiers to use as evidence of plundered possessions.
This is not a police crime report. It's a Petition redress of Grievance to Parliament directly.
These are the sort of things people were petitioning about before the 1688 Bill of Rights, and why they needed ..
"ALL PROSECUTIONS AND COMMITMENTS" Concerning the matter, to be illegal.
These are the Subjects, the public. It is not Lords and Ministers solely able to be eligible for this protection..
It is without question, the people who are, in 1688 given this protection by Parliament and William Orange.
|
|