Diplomatic Immunity - an Overseas extension of Privileges Oct 13, 2019 11:53:37 GMT
Post by Administrator on Oct 13, 2019 11:53:37 GMT
What IS Diplomatic immunity?
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are considered a cornerstone of modern international relations. As of October 2018, it has been ratified by 192 states.
There is an entire work set out.... But in essence what IS IT?
It is just really an international Law & Agreement.. To extend the already existing "Privileges" and "protections" from being prosecuted...
So that they apply in other countries & overseas.
That is it.
There is no need to go into the details of the Treaty and argue this or that...
You just need to understand.... That when the Bill of Rights states "ALL" prosecutions are illegal... They really are.
In Relation to the Privileges originating from the "Bill of Rights" That are in effect for Parliament (Either House)
And any work carried out "In connection with" or for purpose of Parliament.
People can Petition Parliament.. It is done in connection with Parliament & for that Purpose. Petitions are funded by parliament. Because the Petitions Site is funded by Parliament. Therefore Political Undertakings, Groups, Body's act with that Authority.. by that "Right" to DO the Petitioning . To Her Majesty's Government.
The Same Protections "Within" British Borders... Its the same TYPE and EXTENT of Protection as Parliamentary Privileges & Diplomatic Immunity. Its the [SAME THING]
in essence... the Point of the Vienna Convention is to carry that protection overseas for people acting as representatives of British Government.. Abroad.
When you conduct petitioning In the UK, you are volunteering yourself to Political Work For your Country. You have the Right to do it.
Its a Democratic Function.. the "RIGHT" is the "RIGHT" to DO IT. And be protected from "opposition" opposition which would serve to prevent you from doing it.. through obstruction, punishment, restriction, hinderance.. Particularly when you are investigating something..
The Bill of Rights lists "Illegal Prosecutions"
Later it Lists " The Right to Petition" protecting people from these "illegal Prosecutions".
Its clear that the first mention of "illegal Prosecutions" are the ones which the protection is in place to protect us from.
And they would be originating from nowhere else, but the Government / Monarch themselves & Their Prosecutors because they are the ones who do 99% of the Prosecuting.
THATS THE POINT.
Few Private Persons bring Prosecutions. Or even have done.
Few People knew the law in 1688 let alone were trained in bringing Prosecutions.
Democracy is people voting & having a House of the "Common people" running the country.. beside the House of Lords.. Which represents the Monarch & peers.
The point of the Queen Not being allowed in the House of Commons... is because the "Kings Bench" as it were... Has no Jurisdiction in the Commons..
Because the Debated & petitioned Subjects/causes.. must be brought without intervention.. Then.. When Debated freely without Prosecution... Evidence gathered & Brought to the Commons without intervention...
The Matter is THEN put to the House of Lords.. Queen.. VIA the House of Commons.
If you can understand that..
It certainly would NOT be decided if [THIS] was the case by ANY Magistrates court or a Crown court....
As it would be as if they were writing the Law.
As Alistair McCreath stated in The Lord Hanningfield and Regina... at a Crown Court (Southwark)
You can go from here to Timbuktoo but you will get the same answer "No"
no the case cannot be heard.
So you would never appeal such a matter at crown court. & certainly not after that case was decided.
Therefore a Magistrates Court certainly cannot hear such a case either.
Now... If they did hear it (unlawfully).. It needs remedy. Not appeal.
The Case needs re-opening or otherwise setting aside.. As there has been a defect in process.
It was never a matter a District Judge had the authority to decide.
Because there is no [CASE] to hear to decide on..
The [MATTER] is recognition of a right.. laid [CLAIM to]
There is no Criminal case to hear. or decide on.
There is only... "something which needs to be recognized" and has failed to have been recognized.
It is in fact the Legal Requirement of the Crown Prosecution Service to recognize such a right...
& actually of the Court.
So it would be compulsory to re-open a case when there is new material to assist with recognition.
We are NOT appealing a criminal case here.
We are requesting recognition of a right. Because the ACT is on no concern to the court. It doesn't matter what the acts was or the offence. It is irrelevant.
As in the Lord Hanningfield Case.
And As With the Car/Motorcycle accident with the recent Anne Sacoolas Diplomatic Immunity case.
It really Doesn't matter about diplomatic Immunity anyway.. Because The Criminal Damage Act Cleary Covers Acts & Actions performed with a "Right" in place.
So it does not matter what act or action it is.. what was being used or if there was anything (under the control) of the person... machines or vehicles.
The Criminal Damage act 1971 is a legal basic covering actions.. When there is a Right & interest.. Its not only raised if that offence is charged against.