|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 10:53:54 GMT
We are now, seriously without question and with complete and total clarity and certainty looking at Criminal charges against the police for obstructing a policing investigation being undertaken by a member of the public (subject) eligible to use and with the right to use all policing legislation and provisions of law.. which is inclusive IN connection with and for purposes of a political petition which had additional protection of the right to petition...
Punishment of such Citizens by the courts is illegal as they have already initiated their own proceedings in law which they are engaged in. Hinderance and obstructions of such an undertaking by the police is illegal
Perverting the course of Justice Misconduct in public office Theft of political materials Theft of my driving licence and Privileges Illegal arrest and detention Are the criminal offences against me..
Without even getting into the evidence of the actual petition itself bringing evidence of the Road Traffic enforcement corruption
Police and colleagues giving false statements in court Causing drivers to contravene traffic regulation orders and exceed speed limits
I actually believe that it is into institutionalized crime.
Not only institutionalized crime, but parliament.. Ministers who actually.. through history have fought for the rights of the subjects and themselves.. Which is the real reason behind the Civil War...
They now, after establishing the rights... Instead of upholding OUR rights... they serve to respect and a knowledge them only for themselves and are playing down, and covering up the full extent of the rights..
In order to protect themselves from liability and facing consequences of Greivences brought to parliament where their own actions and affairs are the cause of serious concern, in fact... bring accusations against them and their police force and Justices..
As traditionally the rights actually exist to facilitate means to remedy.
The police are going to have to stand down their prosecutions and a knowledge the Rights which the citizens have to conduct policing, themselves particularly when the courts and police and government itself are the cause of investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 19:06:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 21:39:59 GMT
This is important for understanding the meaning in the 1688 Bill of Rights "The Kings Bench" as we have been informed by the National Archives anyway..
Here, in Chapter 16. Pages 159 and 160 Of Peter Ackroyd's "The History of England volume III" Civil War..
Well for this petition, that says it all doesn't it? The Judges have had their fingers in the Roads and Road signs, Highways since the beginning. Never mind since the formation of the police force in the early 1800s to direct traffic.
Note that the church and law are intimately connected and associated under law enforcement and keeping the peace.
Which is why in the Bill of Rights, later.. the religious and civil rights are intertwined together. That Bill is highly religiously focused..
The earlier declaration of Edward III is much more Civilian and Greivence specific to law and order..
But both grant directly resolution being brought to the King or Parliament if it is being held. Rather than the local Justices or Sherrif.
The Public are empowered with law enforcement equal to the Constables and Sheriffs..
These Justices who visit every two months, are travelling the "Circuit" of Jurisdictions.
They are the Kings Bench.
In Modern times now there are separate circuits rather than one large circuit. I believe it used to conclude at the tower of London?
It is these foundations of the system, even in Edward IIIs charter.. that sets out.. petition can be brought free from liability with full use of the laws.. to bring a case to the Parliament. To the King.
It is also essential for the public to be able to bring complaint and case to the Parliament of any crimes or misconduct of the justices or constables.
And therefore that is the ancient basis of the right to petition, in fact... Not just to petition over new laws, changes in law or taxes...
Actually a criminal case against the Constables or Justices or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 22:13:08 GMT
I didn't want to get arty and Television quoting with this thread.. I wanted to keep it factual.. But this is so serious that I am adding this.. current affairs
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 22:48:38 GMT
Compare use of language for interpretation 1632 I'm certain Peter Ackroyd was well aware of this example which is why he sites it here in his book... informing us kindly. 1688 I believe it is written this way on purpose the part of illegal prosecutions and the right to petition is written so clear as to indicate the previous corruption of the government for which the Bill does serve relief from. And we should know that it serves as to be based upon the Edward III ancient rights.... Which is exactly why the American First Amendment lends homage directly moreso to that text than the 1688 Bill. By sited use of terms Citizens and Greivences. Rather than Subjects and no specified requirements for cause.... Subject left open....
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 4, 2020 23:16:10 GMT
So not long before the Civil War starts.. They get this Long Parliament.. instead of the short one previously always being dissolved Then.. literally there becomes conflict and ministers at war, and chaos... Behold... the trial of William Laud Roundheads apprehend him Not by the Courts, but by parliament it appears I am still a little stumped as to the clarity between the commons and Lords at this stage... the fire of London was before the 1688 Bill of rights. But I didn't know that Parliament actually burned down! Early 1800s in fact not long after the police force was formed. Around the same time. Propaganda? So much for guy fawkes and the plot, huh? Seems they forget to remind us of this other incident.. I actually didn't know you can go into spectator debates at parliament! Only just read that now. Amazing! Can tramps and beggars watch? I'm unclear on if Oliver Cromwell decided to have a 2nd chamber for Lords... Or if there was a different configuration There appears to have been various chambers such as the star chamber
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 5, 2020 0:02:30 GMT
It seems like once the long parliament is established... then after the Civil war.. and 1688 Bill of Rights..
Parliament has the authority itself not the kings Justices or else you are simultaneously addressing the Kings Government through parliament. Which in turn co-operates with the Lords.
I believe the Edward III model must be re affirmed in the 1688 Bill of rights because the Americans clearly combine them both together to produce the First Amendment Constitution
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 5, 2020 0:42:46 GMT
Its looking like the Kings Privy Council was where the Lords were active.. when there was no Parliament or when it had been dissolved.. because the Kings Bench and Justices are an extension circuit of the star chamber and tower of London www.britannica.com/topic/Privy-Council-United-Kingdom-governmentI still am certain I read that Cromwell decided to have a official chamber for the House of Lords.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 5, 2020 0:58:14 GMT
Its without question that after Magna Carter..
From at least Edward I to Edward III We absolutely have a right of Subjects clearly Citizens stated. To petition the parliament/king with a redress of Greivences which can be crimes brought for decision/debate also.
And its bypassing the normal local Justices and Constables. And that the Citizens have the power to uphold the law and use the law to uphold it. And this power was not taken away in the 1800s.
Now, Civil cases are brought by Civil procedure rules.
Criminal cases are brought by criminal procedure rules (rights must be recognized)
A lower court cannot intervene in a higher court.
But a higher court can injunction a lower court.
And it's clear that Parliament traditional IS a court and dealt with law or disputes.
It's the highest court.
So neither a criminal court nor a county court nor the high court can intervene in parliament because it's the highest.
And we the Citizens have the "Right" to go straight there to the highest authority..
By petition. And we can get a whole lot of public support and signatures.. bringing evidence before the nation.. which without question overshadowing a Crown Court jury to shame...
Court forms are not THAT complicated. You can go to the small claim court easily online.
So, the straightforward petition process.. Be it HM petitions where you attach evidence and gather signatures. Or a hand framed petition.. or using a resource like 38 degrees on the internet or change.org is not really any radical than online small claim court .... because I've done that. It's simple.
Therefore.. It's clear enough that..
Petitioning parliament you are bringing a case. Under the Right to petition which is synonymous with the Edward III ancient charter and the American First Amendment Constitution.
And it can be concerning any matter. Of this nation & Government...
Therefore as you are engaged in proceedings therefore..
No lower court can intervene.. Be it county court nor criminal court.
Simple.
Therefore no police prosecution can intervene through the magistrates courts in your proceedings and their activities, investigations.
Period.
Simple.
And the District Judges might not like that. Tough. They better get to like it. As likely they are the subject of the greivence.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 6, 2020 0:56:48 GMT
It seems ridiculous to imagine that Guy Fawkes was stopped and the Catesby Gang captured on the run, way before there was ever a police force, yet Parliament actually did burn down, from a mysterious huge fireball in 1834, well after the Police were established in 1829. www.localhistories.org/police.htmlSo much for a step forward..... Apparently people were afraid of being oppressed by the police. Likely would have been more difficult to assault a castle with flaming catapults. I think there has been weaker efforts abroad by various armies we have sent to france, and other countries La Rochelle for example... Hitler did the best work out of Plymouth... it would have been magnificent to have seen that original old city.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 6, 2020 1:07:08 GMT
I am convinced now, that...
As the 1688 Bill of rights word for word clearly says..
ALL prosecutions are illegal... Then I believe literally it is as stated And parliament itself cannot prosecute anyone for bringing evidence by petition. That covers Gentlemen, Nobles, Ministers alike. Policing work.
Where as.. for Parliamentary Privileges itself for the debate side of things.. There is still impeachment which is used when MPs are not honest. When they defraud us. Because a matter has to be truthful and legitimate for it to be debated or else it is deception.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 7, 2020 15:18:02 GMT
It seems like Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, in Yorkshire..
Has this "Thorough" party. Or policy. Which had a Royal prerogative
This was when Members of Parliament just represented their constituents.
After this, is when there were proper formed the Roundheads and Cavaliers.
The Thorough policy was more Associated with the Privy Council members and peers. They had the Star Chamber for highest Court. I don't think there was a Proper "House of Lords" because I'm certain I read Cromwell built it later on.
After the Civil war, the "Whig party" is what became of the Roundheads.
The Tories, it seems likely are a party emerged from the Royal supporters of the "Thorough" policy....
And from here emerges party politics. In fact mainly resulting from "opposition" of the Civil war itself. Because before this we don't have "opposition as such" rather just a parliament of MPs representing their constituents.. some more and some less in favour of the King/privy council authority.
Unfortunately, the modern model to be seems that "MPs" have effectively replaced the Monarchy rule and the Ministers and Lords behaviour is as if they are all Kings and Queens...
Flip sides of the same coin... Heads and tales... Labour and Conservative with minorities as the edge of the coin.
No matter heads or tails, the ministers win. Labour and Conservative rule as a King and Queen... in perpetual arguments but they always win over the public..
The past has always been the fight to secure their (our) rights, from the tyranny of the King.
But now they have secured it... they have become as monarchs and they are denying US our proper rights... the Citizens..
Exactly as they were being denied their rights by the king.
It is now a fight to defend and secure our rights as citizens which the "parties" are trying to keep for themselves only. To maintain their rule over us..
Of the coin, flip slide.. con, lab. Coinage rule.
Where as the truth of fact is that long before political parties were created...
The ancient rights preceding any are of the Citizens, the Subjects..
Which every minister first and foremost is a Citizen, a subject. NOT the sovereign
Therefore the truth is that no ministers have any rights above our own ...
The rights of the Second great Charter of Edward III re-instated in the 1688 Bill of Rights and the American first Amendment are of "The Citizens"
There is no difference between a Minister and a layman only that a Minister is continually engaged in Parliament work. Where as a Citizen is engaged in their own career. But has the same Right to undertake Parliamentary engagement of petitioning
The Privileges predate political parties and parliament itself. Because that right is not dependent on parliament. It is effective of itself with the Monarch and privy council and only through parliament when there is one.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 7, 2020 15:38:43 GMT
WOW this is IT! Parliamentary committees for petitioning concerning corrupted justices of the peace! And so forth!! Which requires evidence! Exactly what I am doing! I knew it! I wonder if I can get evidence from the National Archives! Public petitions now covers ALL petitioning subjects.. a committee is still parliament just a certain department.... In fact they pass certain matters to relevant departments just as when you email number 10 they distribute to the appropriate department Bingo! Peter Ackroyd understands it exactly as me! This is before the Civil war even! And a major innovation of the Long Parliament! Cromwell and the Parliamentarians believed it was an ancient right of England already. No wonder it was made into a Constitutional right, re-affirmed and consolidated in 1688. Note that Oliver Cromwell himself didn't feel there was a need to make a special right because as far as the new long parliament was concerned.. the Edward III second great Charter was sufficient. And the new committee of "Painted Chamber" thus did act to facilitate this perfectly well. By public petitions and evidence. Well, exactly as I have been saying all through this. The problem with the Judicial investigations office is that seem seem to have extremely limited understanding of what Judicial conduct actually is... And the terms, fraud, corruption and illegal prosecutions.. They seem to think spitting, swearing and slapping people are the limits of their powers and interests in Judicial jurisdiction.. Unfortunately many foreign staff are employed by the office as set chess pieces who have extremely limited insight and understanding and biased views... Bordering on corruption itself
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 7, 2020 16:36:04 GMT
In the reign of Edward III you didn't need parliament you could go directly to the Kings Council.. using all laws at your disposal.
Once the Long Parliament is established, parliament cannot be dissolved by the King and retains the power invested by the mace.
Therefore acting with & on behalf of the authority of the King
This is comparable to the evidence I have added from other committee's compounding and the "Parliament Joan" and other petitions from the "women and the civil war" pages on National Archives.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 7, 2020 22:54:24 GMT
Problem with the Judicial Investigations office staff... Is that they don't understand that.. Regardless of what they think or find themselves.. regarding a complaint..
It's the BRINGING of a complaint.. Which exercises the right. The right to act to obtain and bring evidence..
A person doesn't actually need TO have a court case against them ... to submit a report..
But it's the fact that a person cannot BE prosecuted for such actions required for such an undertaking.. and IF they ARE prosecuted.. the case is in fact ILLEGAL..
No matter what the Judge decides because its actually a right which serves to render such a justice not within their Jurisdiction to have acted.
Which itself is illegal. The Human rights act 1998 doesn't make it illegal. It's a specific provision of the 1688 Bill of rights, that made it illegal.
Thus, clearly a perversion of the course of Justice.
Also the current staff of the Judicial Investigations office.. don't recognize the terms "fraud" and "corruption" .. they don't seem to believe its possible.
And that Judges, Magistrates can do no wrong in relation to their court activities..
They don't seem to recognize and believe in literally.. lies, fraud, corruption as conduct issues, or offences which are punnish able or merit investigation..
They fail to identify a hammer as a weapon.. And a Judge as a criminal who can abuse their position in other ways than physical harm or verbal insult. Manipulation of proceedings, defect in proceedings, fair trial impossible.. Lying, fraud and other behaviour and conduct issues of judges.. unfortunately seem beyond the belief and capacity of the select staff that have been placed in the Judicial Investigations office.
Oliver Cromwell's parliament would have been insulted by the standard of todays Judicial investigations office.
|
|