|
Post by Administrator on Feb 29, 2020 1:09:20 GMT
I'll throw yet another poetic insight into the Richard Cromwell "Chesshunt" pitch for you... Chess pieces were usually made of bone or ivory in those days... If you were looking for where Richard Cromwell ended up.. you are likely to find his bones where he was buried... But if you are looking for a piece of his father's bones.. "Oliver Cromwell" The Lord Protector of the commonwealth.. you are unlikely to find any pieces at all after what they (Royalists) did to the remains of his body.. If anything you could say he was more of a "knight" peace by all the wars lead.. and the knight piece is a horse only with no rider usually.. he was never the king. But both were pawns that made higher rank.. Richard Cromwell could be looked more upon as bishop, even though he was not a priest, or at least the Lord did watch over his body at least... and by gods will the Bill of Rights watch over us, and protect us all.
At the end of that chapter of history.. I believe the lessons are that titles are little value.. it is god and the laws that are important and the people... The good subjects.. the white pieces.
That is what it's all about. The Righteous. Rights. Faith. The common good. Less look for heroes, graves, names, titles, wealth.
Rest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 29, 2020 1:34:47 GMT
Also... lol. Sorry.. have to add.. "Bill" is used for the term.. to pay the bill, (invoice) as well... So.. if you are protecting the common peoples wealth.. you foot the "Bill" for them? Yes? You settle the Bill. William Orange was new to England when the Bill was drafted so unlikely had much first hand experience and knowledge of what had been going on in England in the previous years.. therefore the input into that bill was likely the ministers and parliament and extended circles. Not William himself Unfortunately .. I don't believe the current proposal in the newspapers today for a £3 Billion refurbishment of the Houses Of Parliament is exactly protecting the common peoples wealth.....
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 1:28:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 1:53:27 GMT
Mentions test here.. so as I presumed.. the Right to petition is itself a test against corrupt justices because its illegal for them to fail to obey it You cannot take arms against the king. But you can bear arms for defence (people used pistols for duels) obviously you therefore cannot challenge the king to a duel.. but you can petition the king... therefore bring matters against the king by petition... into parliament and you cannot be prosecuted for that undertaking. which makes sense Yes... There were offences.. dealt with by magistrates/ chief magistrate.. Crimes.. Publishing.. books, pamphlets that were not conforming to the church of England.. Also just .. not following church of England rules.. So.. when you are petitioning the King/parliament.. Its actually offences that you are protected from. Chargeable offences. Not simply petitioning itself.. Actual lists of offences you might have been making... So if you are petitioning about changes of the church.. you can't get prosecuted.. For publishing the pamphlets.. Or any other offence. It has to include delivering the petition. It must include research and evidence.. And as I suspected exactly as I suspected its talking about all those that may be able to read in those days... school masters, priests, students,... these are the learned subjects. Pretty much exactly as I have been saying all along. Can someone please fill in Simom Cole on this an DJ Watson as they are retards. A person cannot be prosecuted or charged with an offence nor by any court or Chief justice when they were acting for a petition to the Monarch by parliament. You can use the Privileges of travel/driving to deliver and conduct the petitioning requisitions. Its obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 11:11:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 12:21:31 GMT
One other major significance is that actually ministers were not voted in by the public as they are nowadays. So the Right to Petition is actually older than the Polling rights. Because in earlier parliaments ministers put themselves forward from an area to be members and often the King would not have a parliament and would dissolve it.
The Earldom of Orford is now extinct
We aren't taught about the first prime Minister at school.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 12:22:02 GMT
Basis behind the Gulliver's travels theme. (Tied down by liliputians) (court)
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 1, 2020 12:35:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 2, 2020 11:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 2, 2020 12:24:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 2, 2020 14:19:20 GMT
The main fact about this entire Right to Petition issue is this....
You aren't asking the court to excuse you from an offence, or grant you exemption nor are you asking the court to find you not guilty.
The law itself is that there is no offence to be charged with. This right, fits with all other legislation.
You are claiming the Right, in order to have the charge dropped, discontinued. And it recognized by the public and all other subjects that there is no offence to be charged with.
You claim this to each person, party. You aren't submitting it to a court as a defence against a criminal charge nor are you contesting the matter with the other party in civil court before a judge.
There is nothing to contest in a court. All proceedings by the (kings bench) justices are illegal.
The justices are the last people who have any say in the matter. Its creating OFFENCE by the Justices.. and other party against you. You don't hold a civil contest with an accuser over if they are or are not committing a felony against you..
Because both the prosecutor party AND Judge are both performing an illegal act against you together.
Its impossible for the judge to make a decision in those circumstances.
You claim a right, where the matter is pre decided in law. According to your eligibility to claim the right. The law has already been written. The situation is decided.
The claim itself is required to be recognized and applied to effect by the overriding objectives of the criminal procedure rules.
To ignore that, is to break the rules. Commit a crime. Make offence. Under that particular right. The right to petition.
There is a known legal situation called "fair trial impossible"
This is when its impossible to get fair Justice.
Its clear that where the judge is in a position that they cannot lawfully DO something.. they themselves cannot logically sit the proceedings. You cant have a legal situation where when the judge decides in your favour, he thus incriminates himself.
He isn't going to incriminate himself. So its impossible to have a fair trial.
The judge and other party , prosecution are not going to give a fair trial where they are party together in an illegal action against you (or alleged illegal action)
Its not logical to be possible to have such a hearing or trial. It defies the principle of a fair trial. And the code of conduct...
This is why rights are enforced by and exercised by the power of law of itself.
Not by any "justice" . No Justice Grant's you protection from himself.. where if he did not approve, he would be making offence. Because it effects his decision making.
The rights are applied by legal claim where the law itself is the decision maker pre-decided. Set.
And the law REQUIRES the Justices, court police ,Prosecutors to OBEY the LAW by default. As requisitions of proceedings and preliminary proceedings or wherever there is a claim to a right presented. Claimed.
Its literally straight forward. You just produce the legitimate claim details and documents that don't require THAT much logical validation.
Its obvious when it's a valid claim to the right and eligibility is genuine
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 2, 2020 14:39:31 GMT
A woman on the bus just now had a worksheet she was reading..
"Classification by an element"
I am going to do an example with the soduko puzzle to again illustrate.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 3, 2020 11:49:37 GMT
Provisions in the law particularly criminal damage act 1971 section 5, make it by law that there (is no offence) committed if someone acts under a right or privilege. There is therefore no defence possible to enter because you cannot be charged with anything to defend against. This corresponds to the 1688 bill of rights, right to petition and illegal prosecutions. Where prosecution and all other commitments are illegal. Not lawful to engage in proceedings with through the criminal or county courts (high courts also) because those Privileges and rights are different proceedings. Proceedings in connection with parliament already being brought under a right, interest, privilege. The proper method to take action against people acting under such rights or privileges is through parliament, impeachment or by the Lords. Unfortunately the Government messed up the traditional system by breaking sudoku rules and removed the Lords Judgments and created the supreme court, which is not parliament. Thus political matters have been taken outside of parliament.. which is a breach of democracy.
Also, since the early 1800s the police force are a large body, a party. If you have a greivence against the police which you are taking to parliament through the right to petition, with evidence against the police, it cannot be possible for the police to intervene using prosecution while they (the police) are being investigated. The public ARE a important force of law and order and always have been, prior to Hue and Cry being withdrawn. It only removed compulsory action by the public. It did not stop the public from choosing to perform law enforcement. The police as a party and organisation must be able to be investigated when there is evidence against them. And petitioning to parliament with Greivences against the police IS protected from the police and court Jurisdiction.
Therefore any illegal prosecutions by the courts, police, Crown Prosecution Service must be voided and removed because such prosecutions are invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 3, 2020 17:21:43 GMT
Ok... this is critically important.
In the Peter Ackroyd book.. Civil War volume III history of England
It is clearly evident that on many occasions the King did not choose to, nor have to assemble a parliament.
It could be dissolved.
Now, the right of the subjects to petition the King, is firmly rooted in the fact that there does not even need to BE any ministers and members of parliament at all.
To petition the King, or His Majesty's Government.. if he does choose to have a parliament or not.
No matter if a subject under the Sovereignty of the King (or Queen) is a Gentleman or a Nobleman..
Common man, or Earl or Knight... He has the Right to petition the King.
This is immaterial to if he is a Minister or not. Because if there is NO parliament and NO ministers.. there is still a Right to petition the king. And beside the sovereignty of the King...
All Gentlemen and Nobles are equal of status as subjects of the King. None are the sovereign.
Therefore this principle of ancient right is made that ministers have no special privileges in petitioning that are exclusive to them. Because all men, Gentlemen and Nobles are subjects. With the same rights.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 3, 2020 20:58:13 GMT
WOW!! www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/new-history-london/pp784-799Edward III 13 November 1312, to 21 June 1377. Magna Carter is a huge red herring and distraction from our main rights and Privileges of petitioning which are here clearly and much better stated! Which is what the Bill of Rights, Right to petition is based on! Citizens have the same rights as a Sherrif to apprehend criminals by the laws which are created for us all. The Sherrif commits the criminal to court, but we are not held to account for acting by the law ourselves. And we have the rights and Privileges of the law at our disposal as Citizens which includes policing purposes.. We can also petition parliament, the King, Ministers ourselves is our ancient right. Its is absolutely ours as Citizens not exclusive to any ministers in fact the system is for them to recieve our petitions In fact older than the current voting system and polling. We can undertake proceedings also to bring any criminals to justice not by the court Circuits, but directly to parliament itself which would include actually Greivences and complaints against the constables, Justices, Sherrifs themselves... literally reporting them to parliament/King And we have the right to use the laws and Privileges granted to us, the Citizens to do that. This is actually where the Bill of Rights right to petition comes from. It wasn't actually conjured up from nowhere. This is from Edward III reign. Thus we have as I have assumed, full right to all provisions of law for policing purposes through petitioning.. So we can collect evidence for a petition concerning corrupted Sherrif, constable, Justices Absolutely fundamental rights. Exactly as I have been saying I don't think I would have found this now, if I hadn't got this Peter Ackroyd book out of the local library! The Civil War with Cromwell was basically because Charles I wasn't upholding the Ancient rights and Liberties set out by Edward I and Edward III second great Charter of the liberties of England The 1688 Bill of Rights is literally, with the Right to Petition a reinstatement of this, with added religious rights. The right to petition is actually older than the other rights. And its just not a matter of the 1688 Bill of rights being a new updated version. That right to petition of the citizens and other Privileges and civil liberties are clearly belonging to the subjects. Including enforcement of the law, before there was a police force in the early 1800s.. the Citizens can use the law to apprehend felons and criminals. Its not exclusive to the Sherrif or Constables. Particularly if it's for a petition to parliament! Which you can petition about offences and Greivences concerning the Justices and Sheriffs, Constables!
|
|