|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2020 4:12:12 GMT
I've realized that the defective and unlawful policies currently held by the public petitions committee are undoubtedly designed to obstruct and limit our voting capabilities to get actions through parliament
This is from discovery on reading more of the Peter Ackroyd book...
Therefore here is my most recent complaint today to Parliament
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2020 11:19:56 GMT
Ok so, this "Painted Chamber" committee were investigating corrupt and reported crimes and fraud.. by Justices of the Peace, Ministers and Constables.. also the Kings Privy council as well ...
It seems that because the King had been imposing the ship money tax and doing all he could to obtain money from the Citizens, including from his own Knights, his Courts had become corrupted.
The Parliamentarians therefore recognized the need to clean up the system. I think they were also trying to "get" or remove as many of the kings supporters from the Judiciary also probably as well.
They requested petitions from the public laying evidence on evil and corrupt officials. And investigated such matters themselves. Remember that there was no police force.
It seems the king was angry about their activities and also with the new colonies established in America inspired by the culture they had found there, there was growing lack of faith in a absolute monarchy. King Charles tried to arrest some members of parliament but they had been tipped off and avoided arrest.
This caused alarm in parliament and as they had removed key people of the King... Archbishop Laund and Strafford.. And the King had made peace again with Scotland by religious agreements.. and trouble in Ireland also on the cards..
The Parliamentarians decided they needed actual protection of forces from the King.
1.Viscount saye, William Fiennes involved in overseas colonies. Parliamentarian. Opposed kings execution
2.The earl of Bedford Francis Russell, 4th Earl of Bedford Privy council. Leader of Parliamentarians, but supporter of laud and strafford. Died 1641
3.The earl of Essex Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, KB, Privy Council was an English Parliamentarian and soldier during the first half of the 17th century. With the start of the English Civil War in 1642 he became the first Captain-General and Chief Commander of the Parliamentarian army, also known as the Roundheads.
On 4 January 1642, Charles went to the House of Commons to arrest Pym and four other members for their alleged treason. Essex had tipped off the five members about what the King was planning to do. Charles was humiliated when he entered the House of Commons only to find that the five members had fled. In that same month Essex began to absent himself from Charles's court. In April he was dismissed from the office of Lord Chamberlain when he failed to join the King at York. His position as Captain-General of the southern forces was deemed to have lapsed.
The Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber were courts of the Kings Council which Parliament abolished.
The Painted Chamber committee did, as it seems conduct proceedings somewhere on behalf of Parliament Jurisdiction.
Which is where the Authority resided to bring petition to. By the Citizens on behalf of Parliament
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2020 20:20:23 GMT
Ok, importantly.. these two Roundheads were both the main leaders along with Oliver Cromwell.. AND they were heavily involved in the overseas colonies so.. as I thought all along.. it is their opinion and insights of the Americans and natives culture that has a huge impact on their view of England and parliament and democracy through fair debate and more equal meetings of men rather than absolute monarchy.
Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick, Lord admiral of the English fleet, portrait by Anthony van Dyck, oversees colonies
Viscount saye, William Fiennes involved in overseas colonies. Parliamentarian. Opposed kings execution...
So, even though there existed the Edward III charter.. it's fair to say that the Roundheads were responsible for creating a proper committee that the Citizens could petition to concerning corrupt officials.
And in fact this is really overlooked and the later 1688 Bill gets all the attention. And I still think Richard Cromwell likely gave input towards the William orange Bill
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2020 21:37:37 GMT
Wow,the Painted Chamber was the most spectacular room in Parliament before it burned down! You have got to be taking the peepee. It makes a bent L shape with the Lords chamber It actually was just to the side of the Lords Chamber. Accessible from the House of Lords chamber by this map. The King/Queen sit in the Lords therefore it carrys the Jurisdiction of the King, clearly. The Kings Bench room on this map in fact is right at the far left side. The map key seems to denote "various" courts. Within. I don't doubt that by petitioning a committee of the Painted Chamber you were petitioning the King. Actually I don't find the Commons written on this map?! The roof looked awesome. Shame it didn't survive.. but they probably would have redecorated it anyway
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2020 21:59:08 GMT
I think that after Buckingham was murdered and parliament closed for 11 years.. And taking into account the Thomas Cromwell history.. Kings Shipping taxes.. even taxing his own knights..
Oliver Cromwell likely had it in for him all along.. and the Painted Room committee likely started gathering evidence specifically to prove the entire Kings Bench and Judiciary was corrupt in order to remove the King... The influences from the Americans are not to be overlooked.. as I think that even before Sir Walter Raleigh... there was a large influence.. In fact, if you think about England having multiple kings... Have we even had less time through history WITH one king, than we have had with separate tribes? Ceasar didn't last that long as Emperor really..of England at least
5,000 BC to 1 AD ... at least 5,000 years of shared Rulers.. we have only really just had about 2,000 years of Single monarchy. Cromwell and the Roundheads were likely in the belief they were re inventing the previous models
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 11, 2020 11:52:37 GMT
It's now clear that by refusing our rights..
The police, courts Crown prosecution service and Parliament
have contrived to totally subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation. While perverting the course of Justice and engaging in misconduct in public office.
I do not know what to do next because we are at the mercy of those supposed to protect our rights and liberties
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 11, 2020 21:15:36 GMT
So....
In the Peter Ackroyd book, even in 1660..
We have accounts of parents beating their children and locking them in a cellar.
Also the majority of men wore a sword in public. This would tie in with the responsibility of keeping the peace. In conjunction with the local constable and Justices.
Note that... beating a child, locking them in a cellar... was not a crime. Nor was a duel with a sword, particularly in defence.
Simply attending a certain Christian ceremony was illegal and prosecuted against
Stealing from a shop would have been illegal.. but not illegal to be beating the shop boy for being slow or clumsy. Or locking him in the cellar.
I think you have to look at law enforcement in a practical sense.
Large groups of Soliders in the city were banned.
It's not until after the police force is established in the early 1800s that parliament is fire bombed.
Its actually no big deal to conduct and submit police work in 2020, especially if you are video and photo collecting evidence because back then, that wasn't possible and there was only witness statements.
Really, we have a serious authority and attitude ego issue with the police and Government currently which is a personal conduct problem. Personality, attitude, compliance.
Nothing is ever as serious as is used to be. Or As dangerous
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 11, 2020 21:38:40 GMT
Here's one for Lenny Henry, Sir Trevor Macdonald, Chris Eubank and Priti Patel why our rights are important especially to investigate crime. What is any minor offence anyway in the pursuit of justice?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 11, 2020 23:40:39 GMT
So, in 1667 they have these "trained bands" which are voluntary members of the public who are unpaid. But trained in basis law enforcement to assist the constable when there is any call for serious trouble.
I think its probably where the current "specials" evolved from who are voluntary police
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 10:52:31 GMT
I think the Right to petition in 1688 certain has inspiration from this "Test Act" idea earlier.. as it allows the Citizens to test the honesty and integrity of the Judiciary and Government. Without the public being liable to punishment for doing so
Also the death sentence is a little extreme for anyone particularly if you are in fact doing honest work for a Righteous cause
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 11:01:04 GMT
It says here also in the Peter Ackroyd book, that 1674 is the period where we see modest beginnings of "Party" in the contemporary sense. From 1674 forward an 'opposition' to the royal cause began to emerge in the commons, with the aim of imposing restrictions upon the kings power and of upholding the supremacy of parliament.
Before this there are no official party politics franchises.
Its members did not consider or call themselves a party, because the term implied disruption or disloyalty, yet in 1673 a member of parliament, Sir Thomas Meres, could speak of 'this side of the house and that side'. The term was considered to be unparliamentary but it was observed, for example, that a cluster of members sat together in the 'south east' corner of the chamber. The 'court' and 'country' parties were also distinguished. The former were intent upon maintaining all the rights and Privileges of the throne while the latter wished, according to the Parliamentarian Sir John Reresby, 'to protect the country from being overburdened in their estates, in their Privileges and liberties.
I am happy that petitioning parliament by the public predates and is a more ancient and established right than voting for a political party. In fact easily as old as even having a local constituent representative in parliament because Citizens could still petition the King / privy counsel when there was no parliament.. if a king dissolved a parliament or decided not to have a parliament.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 11:33:41 GMT
Seems the king was closing book shops and coffee shops on certain days to prevent people of the opposition groups and followings meeting up..
The Government had spies in coffee shops! Lol. Listening to the discussions and debates of ministers outside parliament.
"There was only one newspaper that was granted official authorization, the London Gazette, but this consisted mainly of proclamations, official pronouncements and advertisements.
I actually tried to publish my petitions in the Gazette a few years ago but they refused. I believe the right to petition allows me the right without obstruction or commitment..
Also the girl working at the Shropshire Star newspaper refused. And I needed urgent important witnesses to come forward for a group litigation against the West Mercia police and Shropshire council..
I don't believe they had the right to refuse me. Other newspapers obliged.
I would like to take legal action against that girl for professional negligence at some time in the future and obstructing a criminal investigation and proceedings.
It really was frustrating..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 12:07:33 GMT
Wow...
So I was going to read a library book I have borrowed about Maga Carta ... "blood cries afar"
To find out more about the origin of Parliamentary Privileges.. Also more about the Edward I, II and III statutes...
It doesn't seem like I need to, though.. Here in Peter Ackroyd's book... We have this..
So whatever Parliamentary Privileges there were at this time, from Magna Carta and the Edward statutes, it was not stopping the King, still in 1677, sending ministers to the Tower of London, just for having an adverse opinion and opposition of disagreements.
You need to now be clear that the Right of the Citizens to petition the king and parliament is a separate right. Much older than political parties. And is not even dependent on there being a parliament at all.
And we are clear on that. The Citizens have a right to use all laws available to enforce the and uphold the laws as well. Including petitioning parliament or the king directly. Bypassing the Justices of the peace.
Although there is not as yet in 1677 anything making prosecution against Citizens illegal. But not that prosecution against the ministers is not illegal either as they have been locked in the tower.. 1677.. so from here onwards we have no special treatment for the ministers that is of significant importance...
All is square....
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 12:30:02 GMT
I suppose in a way, the petition to Her Majesty's Government which contains evidence against the police, Courts, Government Departments and Ministers is also a form of affidavit.
I drafted an official affidavit in the traditional form submitted to Westminster magistrates court, but I don't think they took it seriously.
Unfortunately I think the corrupt District Judge Samuel Goozee does frequent that court after his promotion.. following our face-off with the first Right to Petition claim I laid to him as Clerk to the Justice at Huddersfield magistrates court.
Jeremy Johnson QC has received similar strategic promotion after his Lord Hanningfield escapades
And unfortunately the Ministers seem to be behind these strategies.. such as Michael Gove. Advising the Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 12, 2020 13:00:41 GMT
After the end of the "Cavalier parliament"
An election in 1679 was fought between a choice of "courtiers" or "opposition" in which elected where 158 courtiers to 302 of the opposition
I guess this begins the party politics
|
|