|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 11, 2019 0:48:45 GMT
OK OK OK..... JUST AS I EXPECTED.  The "Civil" Procedure rules.... And I will shortly make a video discussion on this... But there is absolutely NO procedure of cases, particularly rights.. passed from a Magistrates Court. Even if its Claimed to be "Civil". So I do not know what DJ Sally Fudge was talking about when she said my Human Rights claim was a "civil matter". The CRIMINAL Procedure rules allow for rights to be recognised (If they haven't been prior) in a Criminal Hearing or Trial. But they are NOT for "Civil Proceedings" .. They were to be recognized in the Criminal Ones. You Clearly do NOT hold a "Civil" hearing in a Magistrates Court with a District Judge. Only a County Court can hear a Civil Proceeding or those listed.. I think they were playing a "test" on me or a "joke". ALSO.. IT CLEARLY SAYS THE RULES ARE SET OUT AND WRITTEN SO THAT AVERAGE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THEM & YOU DONT NEED TO BE A LAWYER. So as I have an A Grade in English... Its clear that I have qualification to Issue the Court with Letters & Notices concerning this that are "Written with qualification & merit of consented intellectual interpretation to be granted to me" I think I have already covered all the main points anyway... But just to Go over it in context.. I will go through the Civil Rules.. & I Will explain.. The Difference between the Civil & Criminal Rules. & How & Where the "OVERRIDING RIGHTS" fit in... And how & where it should be & IS the REQUIREMENT OF THE OTHER PARTIES TO ASSIST & CO0OPERATE in the RECOGNITION & RESOLUTION & REMEDY.. Particularly seeing as its clear the Matter should not have GONE TO COURT. But if it HAS.. Its STILL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE OTHER PARTIES TO WORK WITH THE CLAIMANT TO RESOLVE A [CLAIM] ISSUE. Note that the "right to petition" is not a common everyday right.. Its also a unique and particular one that actually OVERRIDES INTO THE ORDER ITSELF... It has effect OF ITSELF.. It is not an APPPEAL or a DEFENCE. AND ITS CLEAR NOW FROM THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES.... IT CANNOT BE SOMETHING PASSED FROM A MAGISTRATES COURT OR* HELD IN ONE.. IT CANNOT BE*** "A Civil Proceeding IN a Magistrates Court with the District Judge DJ Watson. AS MAGISTRATES COURTS ARE NOT LISTED FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS. & I HOPE THE CPS ARE READING THIS... AND REALISE THAT QUICKLE BEFORE I HAVE CHANCE TO MAKE MY NEXT VIDEO... AND GET THE MONEY TOGETHER (Or Free Injury Claim Entered) TO GET THE SOLICITOR TO ACT... MERELY TO TELL THIS TO THEM & PROBATION IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT IT IS THEIR MESS TO PUT RIGHT & THAT THE LAW & CLAIM IS VALID  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 11, 2019 1:35:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 12, 2019 1:36:24 GMT
So....
Back onto the history trail again...
I'm watching the BBC Wolf Hall series about Thomas Cromwell..
So the King wanted to get divorced..
Biy needed permission from the pope...
So the chancellor petitioned the pope on his behalf
(I suspect by travelling there)
Anyway it was not successful..
Later... the king had a Bill passed that made him head of the English Church.. (wow)
Holy grace by bill?! Law? Not the ten commandments or last supper.. lol.
Anyway..
So..
The 1688 Bill of rights has about as much to do with Politics as it does religion.
It's clear petitioning is not a simple parliament "vote" because when they vote for the bill for* or against* it.. that is not petitioning.. its voting..
So petitioning was undoubtedly a larger and longer affair that did require and include travelling or whatever undertakings were attached to the endeavour...
Also... I'm courts we have the oath.. a religious oath... so legal and court affairs have religious connection.. importantly..
It's clear that the prebates and religious Subjects had petitioning rights as they previously were getting beheaded, executed left right & centre.
I doubt that the right to Petition was narrowly attributed only to Ministers of the commons..
And the Lords was quite new anyway as a separate chamber..
If the King of England could Petition the pope...
Then surely by the time of 1688 after the Oliver Cromwell "Lord Protector of the commonwealth" had been and gone...
The English people could Petition their own King without being prosecuted..
And such protection for the people..
Lord Protector such a title....
Wouldn't it be divine if...
The Lord God did protect all those Subjects that did believe in him..
The well known saying.. if you believe in the Lord god you will be saved...
It would have made sense to do one-up- manship over Cromwell's historic title as a person that was a protector of " the people " of the "common man" the "common wealth"
By instead.. having a "Bill" a law that did protect the Subjects.. the common man...
IF they did not only believe in the king, the head of the church and government..
Bit did actually participate in putting forward contributions and requests to the government officially... by petitioning..
Therefore if they did have any grievances of disputes they could be properly addressed..
And one could not be executed or charged, prosecuted by the courts or the king for bringing such dispute to parliament.
I doubt that Petition referred to mere parliamentary voting on matters.
The petitioning is actually getting a cause and matter together and delivering it...
To be debated and voted on.
I believe this is a more accurate evaluation..
But I will study further..
Though I doubt Queens counsel being lawyers only and not historians would even have the answer or could afford to pay themselves to study in their own extremely valuable time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 12, 2019 2:23:36 GMT
Insights...
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 12, 2019 22:13:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 12, 2019 22:22:55 GMT
Behold! The Subjects  Coats of "ARMS" of the Subjects  Coats of "ARMS" of Universities Education Institutions of the realm. Coats of "ARMS" of The Churches  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 13, 2019 12:16:46 GMT
Also, a good way to get Catholics and other faiths to convert to the Church of England.
And also few people could read and write to Petition anyway...
So it would only have been University's, Churches, and the upper classes really who would be petitioning..
Basically.. if you followed the Kings faith and believed in Him as head of the Church, not the pope... and if you voted for and supported the Government and studied and had good reasons to Petition the King over anything... a dispute or religious concerns or for new laws ..in bringing such Petition you are protected from being prosecuted by the courts.
The King is in fact your protector ...
Basically similar to being saved if you believe in God really..
I think that was the idea behind the bill of rights.. to make the king more appealing
He also lays blame on Judges and Ministers of possibly being "evil" so its opening up a Avenue to resolve that is above and Beyond the courts..
Also encourages people to follow the laws if the Subjects can actually contribute to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 13, 2019 12:42:48 GMT
Newspaper advert from the Metro the other day.. with University coat of Arms  History of compulsory education Antiquity[edit] Compulsory education was not unheard of in ancient times. However instances are generally tied to royal, religious or military organization—substantially different from modern notions of compulsory education. (Obviously at the universities as well as Medieval Era[edit] The Aztec Triple Alliance, which ruled from 1428 to 1521 in what is now central Mexico, is considered to be the first state to implement a system of universal compulsory education.[8][9] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#History_of_compulsory_education  www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/history?wssl=1As the oldest university in the English-speaking world, Oxford is a unique and historic institution. There is no clear date of foundation, but teaching existed at Oxford in some form in 1096 and developed rapidly from 1167, when Henry II banned English students from attending the University of Paris The University of Cambridge (legally The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge) is a collegiate public research university in Cambridge, United Kingdom. Founded in 1209[10] and granted a royal charter by King Henry III in 1231, Cambridge is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's fourth-oldest surviving university.[11] The university grew out of an association of scholars who left the University of Oxford after a dispute with the townspeople.[12] The two 'ancient universities' share many common features and are often referred to jointly as 'Oxbridge'. The academic standards, history, influence and wealth of the University of Cambridge has made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world.[13] An excerpt from the Wikipedia site.. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 15, 2019 20:38:01 GMT
Look...
The Country has laws.
They exist.
The police are allowed to do certain things
In their job.
They don't need to re-prove the same law over and over again every time they do something.
Its already established. That is the entire point of law.
It is actions of people that may need proving or hearing for decisions in courts only if there is doubt about something or its unknown..
The police don't prosecute their own officers because its obvious they are acting for police purposes. Generally.
So when its reasonably clear someone is or has been acting for purpose of a political undertaking of petitioning.. the entire law is there to facilitate that. The law is restrictive of police and CPS, court powers. The public services. That is the whole point.
Therefore the prosecution cannot go around just flaunting that * law which exists to actually restrict the public authority's or it wouldn't be restricting them.
The entire point is to prevent prosecution from being brought In the first place.
Not as a defence against it. Because a right is not a defence against Criminal charges. Or a civil contest..
Its law in effect and applicable effect.. to actually allow actions and undertakings without challenge or hindrance
This is the point the police are missing.
The consequences of their actions
Themselves..
It is illegal to prosecute when there is protection in place. Therefore it's not just an injury to the Claimant.
Its actually an offence by the prosecution
Because they are breaking the law by bringing or attempting to bring proceedings when it is unlawful to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 25, 2019 18:19:01 GMT
If you think of the BBC Drama "The Name of the Rose" where the entire library burns down... And compare it to the Ancient Library of Alexandria that also burned down in historical event... If these type of incidents were not purely accidental... You could see them as opposition to "the Subjects" Free subjective expression... Be it religious or political material.. In the 1688 Bill of Rights, the Subjects have the right of authority to Petition be it religious or political matters, to parliament and as The Queen is head of the church... religious matters are clearly directed there, as the Archbishops have no official ranking. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 1, 2020 0:44:34 GMT
1688... If you can learn a subject.. Example.. reading English language.. Then you can Petition the King over a subject. Hopefully you can speak English  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 5:16:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 6:16:52 GMT
Wow, this is just great! Confirms I was understanding the right things... So the Kings Bench WAS the courts, and they used to travel around the country.. So, you can have illegal prosecution by the courts, for matters only debatable, decidable in parliament.. particularly "petitioning" parliament is an established undertaking bringing a political case to a higher authority. Therefore the case is above and beyond jurisdiction of the courts. And must cover the full case, investigations, proceedings, travelling.. for purposes of such a case. An existing, real petition. Need to print this out! www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/court-kings-bench-records-1200-1600/You don't plea, appeal, enter a defence, or engage in civil contest against another party, when your own actions are already being performed for purpose of and in connection with an existing case. A petition to parliament. You don't intervene through lower courts. This is what the crown prosecution service refuse to accept. And the right itself is in effect prior to the CPS case... if they attempt to prosecute The law of the right, is not executed through appeal or permission of any judge or prosecutor or police officer It is of legal effect of itself by claim, recognition and application. Therefore the claimant simply has the right of immediate relief from any prosecution or its consequential order or convictions where they are unlawfully brought contrary to the protective powers of such a right. The courts have to enforcement powers concerning their orders. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 6:26:44 GMT
I would just like to find a little bit more about "the subjects" now...
From around 1631 to 1690
I will have a look
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jan 15, 2020 12:34:29 GMT
|
|
