|
Post by Administrator on Jun 13, 2021 17:34:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 17:26:08 GMT
Hmmmm Can't believe I missed these before (Actually even though I did in fact comply with these regulations and get registered numbers for my earlier Petitions with HM Government The Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations 2000 www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2852/contents/made
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 17:28:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 17:38:29 GMT
So....
I stand by my previous statement...
That the Right to Petition (itself being statute law) forbids there to be (any) further commitments enacted by Parliament to abridge or manipulate in diverse or abritrary ways.. "the right to petition"
Because ALL commitments (orders) concerning "the right" are illegal.
Only the subject itself can be cognizable, debatable, decidable in Parliament.
All prosecutions by the King's bench are illegal (courts) But the Right itself... the right to petition is that ALL commitments for such petitioning are illegal.
ALL of them.
And the clause about illegal prosecutions mentions nothing further regarding the Commitments.
Therefore it must be the case that this enactment and right can not have any further orders enacted concerning it.
Not concerning the Right itself.
Petitioners Therefore are protected from the Criminal courts and from the Parliament abridging the right itself. Or other diverse and abritaty ways to deviously pervert or subdue the fundamental law and rights of the realm.
We only need look at the American 1st Amendment for guidance which enshrines the same right and principal.
That Congress shall make "no law" that abridges the right of the people to petition freely.
Therefore any acts of law passed that threaten to manipulate or control, subdue or restrict that freedom must shurely be Abridging its original freedom. And original purpose and intention.
The above two acts of law Therefore I linked to I believe to be unlawful and and abridgment of the original true right in statute.
And they are null and void
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 18:07:45 GMT
Further..
The Term in the acts "valid petition" only refers to what that terms means in those acts. And regarding the acts themselves.
The acts do not have any reference to the meaning on "petition" under the 1688 Bill of Rights.. right to petition.
They merely define its meaning only in those acts.
A petition brought under the right to petition can therefore still be valid under that acts of statute law and all provisions and legislation of that statute law apply.
Also..
I question the consequences that such acts as the 2011 act have on websites such as Change.org , 38 Degrees, and so forth.
As they must be valid petitions.. and when an authority is named and emailed.. even if a registration number is not given by the relevant authority.. It cannot invalidate the petition.
Because it is the petitioner themselves who has the right and licence and authority to draft and engage in petition.
The right itself not being reliant on the recipient (Crown) does not have any criteria or conformity because petitioning is subjective freedom.
And a main requirement of that right is that the courts and Kings bench judges are not lawfully permitted to engage by prosecutions.. Nor by orders / commitments.
Because they would serve to interfere with the right to bring it, deliver it, draft it and think it.
They can only decide it. Decide the subject that is put before them.
Providing it has been granted its protection from prosecutions and Commitments in order for it to BE brought at all.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 18:20:23 GMT
To deny a registration number.. must be to deny the right itself?
To decide what can or cannot be put forward is to control what can or can not be though of. And as the making of law is free and at liberty to freedom.. no such control can exist.
The intent and idea and its corresponding actions must be independent of any such registration because the conception of the subject and therefore the petition IS petitioning.
Any act or action or any thinking that any person does, CAN be identified with a reason for doing it and a purpose or intent.
Thoughts do not need registration. But you can write tham down and register them on paper. Actions have a reason, purpose and one can be explained, proved, identified.
Thus any acts, actions of petitioning can be recognised, explained, proved without requiring to be registered. You do not need registration to conceive of and initiate the actions of petitioning. They are and always will be actions and thoughts for petitioning regardless of if they have been registered or not.
Or else one would not have the right to do them unless they were registered.
But as the right to petition, itself does not require registration then no such commitment can be made to requiring of registration in order for one to be engaged in and recognised as "petitioning" with validity.
The right to petition "freely" genuinely is not reliant on registration and cannot be.
Because if it was dependent on registration then that is a commitment that it is held to. And there can be no such commitments.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 19:28:02 GMT
Another important point is this.....
Fundamentally...
If certain "subjects" (in both terms "person" aka the citizen as a subject.. or "subjects" as in meaning the cause, the matter, the idea, request, complaint..
If certain subjects are "refused" or "rejected" by Parliament/ HN Government..
They are claiming that those subjects don't have a right. Don't have THE right. To be entertaining, debated, decided, actioned.
Now as for subjects of the Queen.. we can identify ourselves easily as being subjects of the realm as persons. But we do not need registration or permission as individuals to start a petition or to pursue one. Whether its been received or not. Or registered or not.
And as for the "subject" meaning the cause, the grievance or request.. its evidence..
If it is the RIGHT of the subjects to be put before party, before a Council..
It is there RIGHT.
No such subject is discriminated against in this right. No complaint or cause. Or request.
All subjects are free to be brought without prejudice. That's the entire point in the right. That nothing is beyond consideration.
Therefore the right itself clearly in its construct forbids rejection of any kind.
Because every subject every complaint and every cause has "the right".
Parliament can not decide whether any subject brought does or doesn't have such right. So no commitments can be placed against any subject by Parliament or any Council/HM Government.
Therefore how can registration be denied to any subjects. Because refusal of registration certainly is refusal of right.
So why would you need registration?
At least you don't require registration in order to use and be covered by the right to petition.. as it is enacted.
Therefore no commitments made by any further enactment could possibly invalidate that right.
And I am highly dubious of the motivations and the intent of those persons behind the enactments..
the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions & Directions) Regulations 2000 and the Local Authorities (Referendums)(Petitions)(England) Regulations 2011
Particularly the 2009 action by Gordon Brown's Government.. under Labour. That claims to have taken the highest court of democratic appeal outside of Parliament and placed it with the ministry of justice.
Also all further acts since then that clearly have continued to abridge the rights to petition further and further until there is hardly any right left at all.
Obstruction after Obstruction and manipulation after Manipulation... censorship of certain subjects, evidence, naming of witnesses and persons it concerns.. Until we find we are at bear minimum.
We have been robbed by charlatans.
The very people that this right protects us from. The very people that this right should be able to hold to account for evil deeds and perverting the course of politics.
Subverting the fundamental laws and rights of the realm
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2021 20:38:29 GMT
Also another main point is this..
The above 2 acts primarily focus on internal council procedures and Government process procedures concerning Royal Officials.
The terms are specifically for within that act itself.
The acts do not concern the citizens nor the rights of the citizens in brining a petition.
The basis of the right to petition is that nobody requires permission or approval to petition. And no petition is held by any such commitments for the right to do it to be valid.
In fact quite the contrary. The government doesn't have any legal right to hold the petitioner to any commitments of any act that was enacted after that right was.
And none can.
I believe many modern ministers therefore to be defective and to have made grave errors in their parliamentary buisness of the realm.
I would go so far as to say they are corrupted.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 16, 2021 1:54:54 GMT
So as for dangerous driving charges...
I don't know about South Africa legislation but the road traffic regulations act covers fire,ambulance and police as stated...
For speeding.
Now as for dangerous driving I believe the danger and risk element of the facts and circumstances is brought in using the criminal damage act use of anything and control of a vehicle..
Still.. looking back at older legislation the basis was created for "any emergency" and you didn't have to be a police officer.. only have the circumstances to meet such emergency..
Also special acts of legislation did apply as I have covered in this thread also.. So the Right to petition being a special act would therefore be eligible. So the legal basis was or still is there..
Anyway... for certain this security driver is not police...
And thus certain is Dangerous and a risk. So you tell me what act is in use here?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 16, 2021 2:03:09 GMT
WOW.. I didn't know there was follow up interviews 😳
He said the bank robbers didn't just wake up one morning and decide to Rob a security van!!
They are all ex security or trained people who had planned it!
Seems like Merredyd Hughes and tele-traffic UK training 🤔
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 16, 2021 2:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 26, 2021 11:53:40 GMT
"I carry forth" - "I set before" Looking at the meaning here for the word Prelate that we find in the 1688 Bill of Rights.. In Reference to the Prelates having the right to petition against Evil Justices, Councillor's and Ministers and Royal Officer's.. The Word has roots in meaning particular from the Medieval period to "carry before" to "place before" and a "Civil Dignitory" Not necessarily meaning an ordained priest or Bishop. We "carry a petition" when we are petitioning. We carry it to be presented before parliament. Lay before. We also are "carrying a cause" we take up a "cause" when we protest or raise dispute or grievances we carry the matter. Also the word "Civil Dignitory" when we collect support from the public and get them to sign a petition we are acting on behalf of the civilians the public but not in dispute to other members of the public not through the civil courts.. we take the matter to parliament. I think there is something in this "Civil Dignitory" connotation because in the "Right to Petition" itself... in that provision of the act.. It says "Anyone" can use the right and is eligible to petition the King/Queen and that All prosecutions against them are illegal. You don't need to be a Clergyman. ALL SUBJECTS have that right to that protection from being prosecuted. And really it's the most significant provision in the entire act. And when we are in pursuit of the petition we "carry it before us" and in fact we are acting as "Civil Dignitories on behalf of the public (other subjects) to Her Majesty's Government/Parliament/the Queen. That's what we are actually doing. Taken up a important matter. The bearer ( or bearers) or the petition - the people involved with it.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 26, 2021 12:53:28 GMT
When We are petitioning, we choose to voluntarily take up a cause/matter. (And we have the right to) We Are Carrying the matter before us, with us. (Even when we are gathering evidence) for it.
Remember that when this was enacted there was no "police force" like we have today.
The "Public" the Village people, Towns people would "take up the Law" when they were in pursuit of a fellon or had identified one. The Villagers actually had to act under Hue & Cry.. They were responsible for the keeping of the law & had the Right to use of the law in that pursuit. (& still do) Its not only the police who can take up provisions of law for protection.
This all fits, quite obviously to me.
And I believe the law is Not in Error. The Modern Magistrates, Judges, Police, Ministers are lacking insight & understanding of the full meaning & capacity of this law in contect to when It was enacted. & In the Majority of cases it is compatible with modern legislation.
The only Issue is when we have Protesters Such as Extinction Rebellion who have a "following" and are breaking certain things as part of demonstrations and so forth. But IF THE MATTER has Public support (An Amount) and If its for a Good Cause then.. I Believe the Greater Good Overrides smaller acts that might be unlawfull.
Otherwise you could never ever justify A police officer speeding around to different calls but never getting to any & getting broken off mid call to go to a different call... Because then he is just "racing around aimlessly".
You would then try to argue that his intentions were there in a good cause.. But really he is just physically racing around.
Also is the DAMAGE police do to property when they break doors down Really Justified to the Pursuit of those Criminals there & then?? why dont they just wait outside until the Criminals come out?? Starve them out?? like when they used to seige Castles they would wait weeks... Especially after all Surveillance the police supposedly have done.
At the End of the day the police believe that "THEY HAVE SUPREME RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT THEY DO & BREAK". And Who is to challenge them in a court?? Who is to prosecute them and QUESTION the ACT they used?? If the Means were necessary?? the JUDGES CERTAINLY NEVER EVER QUESTION the ACTIONS of the Police & What they "Break".
Again this is a Result of the "HAMMER" the Judges Hammer.. The Damage the Judges do to people "injury" "inflicting Psychological Harm" through Prosecution, because of crimes they are accused of or convicted of.. Is that Damage really Justified.. Apparently the "justices" deem its "proportionate"
Nobody ever prosecutes the Fire Brigade for water Damage... Its all covered by insurance..
So why arent actions of Groups like Extinction Rebellion just Put under "3rd party" Damages and claimed by insurance.. Just "Bad Luck" that they were targeted for a political demonstration..
The Public Tax Payer Pays for Street Furnature & cleaning anyway. So our taxes cover that.
I Just believe that The Police & CPS believe that because its a Full time Job with Official Position they can throw around the Law all day to their own ends & the Judges are right up their ass craqcks..
Yet SIMILAR near Identical (if not better protection) Exists in Law for anyone who is ACTING FOR A GREATER GOOD/CAUSE.
Anyone who witnesses A robbery CAN use the Acts of Law .. Its RIGHT. Fundamental Right.
We Just Happen to be facing real Global Issues currently & if people BELIEEVE that there is a real serious emergency & a certain number of the public not only recognise that but are Signing petitions & turning up at demonstrations its CLEARLY THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
I Believe that Insurance should sort it out.
And there is one thing you CAN SAY.. the Criminal Damage act does NOT cover ARSON (FIRE) So Extinction Rebelion would be hard pushed to Use the Criminal Damage act For RIGHTS exemption if they started burning things down.
Thats one thing that is not covered/exempted in the act. As its seperate.
I believe that minor offences, because the people are promoting a cause & its minor damages (Not writing anything off) It should be covered by a 3rd Party Accident. And They were just "unfortunately the target of a political demonstration".
Thats what I think at this stage. & Painted Letters & logos are already covered by exemption anyway.
I Like how the Judges think it perfectly OK for police to Ram Doors down.. when they could just do it the (historical way) and Starve out the criminals (Police are never short of MacDonalds anyway) They like to spend more time at MacDonalds then how much time they break doors down.
& Race around between calls, before being broken off to other calls.
True they are Supposedly in pursuit of a Greater Good but.. Why should they be the only ones who put people at risk.. Og Yes Training Training...
But the LAW LEGISLATES THAT THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS FOR PEOPLE. THEY EXIST. AND CAN BE USED.
Unfortunately the CPS & Justices are in complete denial of it.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 26, 2021 15:03:34 GMT
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN LAW FOR ANY SUBJECT TO REQUIRE GETTING A "WARRANT" FROM PARLIAMENT TO ENGAGE IN PETITIONING OR COLLECT EVIDENCE FOR A PETITION. PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS THAT MAY RESULT IN THE CHANGING OF A LAW OR THE MAKING OF A NEW LAW. ALSO I SEE IT RIDDICULOUS THAT... IF THE POLICE THROUGH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES WERE INVESTIGATING A JUDGE OR MAGISTRATES FOR OFFENCES OR CRIMES... OR A NUMBER OF THEM... ON A PARTICULARLY CIRCUIT (OF WHICH ONLY A SET NUMBER OF JUSTICES RESIDE, AND LIKELY KNOW EACH OTHER OR ARE AQUAINTED.. THAT THE POLICE WOULD SEEK A WARRANT FROM A JUSTICE TO SEARCH HIS OWN PROPERTY OR HOUSE OR THE PROPERTY OR HOUSE OF ONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES WHO RESIDE OVER THE SAME CIRCUIT. THEREFORE TELL ME. WHERE DOES A POLICE OFFICER OBTAIN A WARRANT FROM TO SEARCH THE PREMISES OF A JUSTICE OR HIS COLLEAGUES WHO RESIDE OVER THE SAME CIRCUIT??? OR DOES HE SEEK A WARRANT FROM THE HIGH COURT?? WHAT IF THOSE JUSTICES ARE HIS KNOW FRIENDS OR COLLEAGUES ALSO?? SO RIDDLE ME THIS PUNK. FROM WHERE DO YOU OBTAIN THE FUCKING WARRANT? ?? TO BREAK AND ENTER THE PREMISES?? TO ALLOW FOR DAMAGES THROUGH USE OF THE CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT?? OR DO YOU JUST USE THE ACT WITHOUT A WARRANT?? BECAUSE BY PETITION TO PARLIAMENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO PETITION NO WARRANT IS NEEDED TO PROTECT AGAINST THE JUSTICES OR MINISTERS USING THE LAW AGAINST US (AT LEAST TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST US) AND BO ORDER CAN BE MADE. OR COMMITMENTS. AND AS A WARRANT BEING ISSUED BY A JUDGE IS SUCH A COMMITMENT... I DON'T BELIEVE THE JUDGE CSN ISSUE ONE ANYWAY... EVEN IF HE WANTED TO ISSUE ONE AGAINST HIMSELF OR A COLLEAGUE!!! BECAUSE ACTIONS AGAINST US ARE ILLEGAL AND WE DO NOT NEED A WARRANT. PETITION IS SUPERIOR TO POLICE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES. AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PEERS SHOULD NEVER HAVE PUT MATTERS TO THE SUPREME COURT.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 22, 2021 18:28:25 GMT
John Woodcock, Baron Walney Member of House of Lords of the United Kingdom parliament.uk John Zak Woodcock, Baron Walney is a British politician serving as Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption. He was previously Member of Parliament for Barrow and Furness from 2010 to 2019 and before that worked as an aide to Prime Minister Gordon Brown original zoom session with Extinction Rebellion youtu.be/9C8OsXwoLisall my research archives and study around the origins and purposes of the Right to Petition. bentcop.boards.net/thread/244/state-right-petition-subjectsIve been listening to the session that Lord Walney did with Extinction Rebellion And i have some serious reservations and feedback to all politicians and your honourable peers regarding the issues around Political Rights. Particularly as Walney is supposed to deal with such matters and is presented as an advocate for such matters by Parliament I still don't believe that neither Walney or the Legal Sector understands the concept of a political right. And if they do, they certainly don't believe that members of the general public have access to such a privilege not being themselves officially honoured peers of the house. Even though many of us (such as myself) have inherited the right to bear our Arms. Through Family Lineages and therefore have Royal Arms that we are entitled to take up and use. Myself being a distinguished Kelly, i do clearly and evidently possess such a right to bear my arms and all rights that accompany them. Therefore i would appreciate assistance. Particularly as all parties in political rights claims are required by law to assist in the claim of political rights. Just as all GPs assist in claims for medical rights regardless of the circumstances. John Woodcock Baron Walney youtu.be/Dl_7oYNnaUsAs a Political party that deals with political matters on our behalf.. i therefore under my National Insurance cover have a right for elected MPs or the leader of any Political party in Parliament or any peer to attend to my needs and those of anyone who is claiming a political right of protection. Its not a defence against a criminal charge and i am growing very tired of it being referred to as one. Please provide someone to act for us. As Lord Hanningfield was provided for by Mr. Jeremy Johnson QC. Under the Criminal procedure rules overriding objective its a legal requirement for every party do assist in making certain a political rights claim is applied and recognised. Its not a defence. And never has been and should not be construed as one.
|
|