|
Post by Administrator on Oct 27, 2019 22:15:55 GMT
Her Majestys Court Service
NO. Justice. NO. Law NO. Rights NO. Mercy No. Recognition
Guilty until proved innocent at a price to those whom can afford.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 27, 2019 22:38:30 GMT
1 - "(I) do swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me GOD"
1* can be relied upon in [ANY] *type and *stage of * any proceedings...
[Religious] rights. The Human Rights act 1998 section 7(1)b
I believe is the preferred oath... to..
"I swear on almighty God to tell the truth."
Because personally... if I make an oath to god... I am making an oath that I myself will voluntarily tell the truth. And I swear this oath to god.
As the second term is reliant on GOD to tell the truth. Therefore the burden is on god to act to get the truth from oneself. Not oneself freely giving it.
So I believe that the modern court service is engaging in evasive tactics and it is not acceptable under the protestant and Catholic Faith's.. it's a Church of England perversion of the prayer
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 28, 2019 1:53:30 GMT
I just thought of a long and detailed statement to record and upload to DJ Watson about..
Defendants who truly believe they are innocent.. And forgiveness..
How can an establishment require one to swear on a religious text that professes the premise of forgiveness... in its main principle and teaching of practice...
In a jurisdiction of infliction of injury and punishment? Vengeance and consequences..
?? To me it's a contradiction and incompatibility..
The faith of the claimed and sworn oath and religious inclusion does not meet compatibility with the proceedings and consequences of the court..
Which practices unforgiving infliction of suffering and pain.. on the accused...
And I don't believe god required anyone to beg or plead when they are innocent or gravely before a Judge. Simply be honest and tell the truth.
No begging. Just confessing the truth...
Therefore I believe there is evidence of blasphemy of the Court and District Judge. And that it's right to accuse the Judge of Demonic behaviour and especially if they have lied or deceived a defendant..
Or not been straight with them...
Its contempt of court. Not Christian conduct.
In fact, far from it.
You can prescribe all the forms you want, and pretend to be a professional, professor or Queens Counsel.. or whatever academic status of intellectual peerage the district judge assumes himself... In the local circuit...
The principle of swearing on GOD and the holy Bible and not being forgiven...
Is certainly the engagement of charlatans who use religion and god to achieve their own ends of fetish and perversion of means to inflict injury on those who do pray and swear Christian faith.
And may GOD strike down such demons and it be divine intervention.
May DJ Nicholas Watson be Judged by GOD for his sins.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 28, 2019 2:26:05 GMT
They say we must do our Duty to God and the Queen... In that order.
1. GOD. 2. The Queen
God and therefore Jesus preach forgiveness and salvation...
The Queen appears to require payment by money and finance, material acquisitions.. bailiffs... and infliction of punishments and suffering...
Which I do not believe if compatible with neither the Christian faith or Human Rights..
Therefore the human right thinking person and reason, who is of faith be them Catholic or Protestant.. the Subject who has the right to their arms for defence as made in the law... And who does not believe what they did was an offence.. cannot be guilty and must be forgiven.
Particularly if truly there was no damage or injury resulting from their actions..
But this is all besides the point that..
Regardless of all this...
The real meaning of the law is still being ignored or failed to be recognized by the courts who have obsessively and habitually become accustomed to the standard practices of guilt... guilty unless proved innocent.. There is now in practice zero chance of acquittal... It is an attitude of guilty as charged and committed to the inevitable conviction unless a advocate is employed or found for a fee or with aid..
Literally... It's a lost cause... And usually.. it's only reduced sentence.. There are few cases won.. the only ones won are usually for propaganda and media purposes.. to mislead the public.. Which brings in more business..
There is algebra here...
The equation is this...
In court...
No = £+ Innocent = minus
Therefore... For every NO a court issues.. it receives a £+
And every innocent it records.. it gets a minus..
If the court were to issue a high number of minuses... it would become bankrupt.
Therefore it is in the interests of survival to say NO.
And benefit from £+
Which is the purpose of its power.
The trick is that it concerns justice or righteousness or resolution..
This is not the fact.
As... if a man takes another man's jacket.. And the man regains possession of that jacket and inflicts a reasonable injury to the offender.. as the jury would see fit.. Then certainly justice has been served.
Therefore... what need is there for Queens Counsel in such an undertaking of justice? It would seem an extraordinary waste or resources...
Obviously with more complicated offence caused... we can reason in.. investigation and lawyers...
But for the majority of bread & butter of drunken domestic arguments and petty thefts, minor accidents and incidents..
It would seem a great bounty to the court.. in algebra...
For great benefit to the court to produce and maintain.. NO. Outcomes. £+
Or else the court may struggle to survive. Such as had been the fate of Lancaster, Northallerton, Chorley, Calderdale.... all closed down.
Therefore...
I challenge Michael Seath, clerk to the Justices.. And Sam Goozee.. Clerk come District Judge....
That it is in the survival and interest of that establishment to provide as standard issue.. NO. £+ on a consistent and regular basis..
And that any facts, law or material concerning actually case subject and contents.. is in practice and truth.. Irrelevant to the outcome of cases.
It purely based on... the NO £+ principle
In favour of the court and its peerage associates.. The Crown Prosecution Service and Police.. beneficiary of fine payments.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 24, 2020 2:29:39 GMT
|
|