|
Post by Administrator on Mar 17, 2020 22:21:55 GMT
The language of corruption: a discourse of political conflict
"The principal thing... was whether at the time of giving those gifts to the Lord Chancellor there was any suit depending before him." Those concerned were not only immediate parties to the suit but all of the kings subjects who were wronged by corruption.
Phelips concluded with
"it's a cause of great weight. It concerns every man here. For if the fountains be muddy, what will the streams be? If the great dispenser of the king's conscience be corrups, who can have any courage to plead before him?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 18, 2020 0:04:22 GMT
I think the committee of Privileges was established at the Oxford parliament according to this book. So I think it was the king Charles parliament that created it.
By Magna Carta the Privilege is in the set piece (rank) of the Nobles. Not by the houses of parliament building.
But by the Baron, Knight, Earl, Duke, King themselves.
They can only be tried by their equals, fined and sentenced.. and so forth...
But... we, the subjects have a right to appeal and complain, petition to the higher authority... and by petition without intervention by the Constables or Justices..
So essentially its actually like being raised to the level they are ... by right of complaint, Greivence... Anyone can appeal up through the courts.
But the petition is YOU bringing a case. Which is protected to be brought... It's not an excuse to evade charges.. You have a right to appeal any charge anyway.
Really they haven't removed the power to make judgments in parliament. They just have stopped doing it. Because the power resides in the person..
So for example... Sir Alex Ferguson himself, when out in his car... could judge and sentence, fine a police Chief. Or even Sir Peter Fahy.
But Alex Ferguson would have to know that Peter Fahy dicked with the motorway signs and signals.. or something like that. I don't think it has to be in a court building... at the venue. I will have to check... there is something about local sessions. And the circuit. It's related to how a police chief can issue a fine by conditional offer.
And why he ignores people saying they will prosecute him... Yet in fact, petition is the way to do it. Because at least you are protected from the Constable.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 18, 2020 1:49:04 GMT
The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both the delays and changes of law suits.
The Chief Constable had traitorously laboured to subvert the fundamental laws and Government of the kingdom
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 18, 2020 1:49:14 GMT
The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both the delays and changes of law suits.
The Chief Constable had traitorously laboured to subvert the fundamental laws and Government of the kingdom
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2020 18:13:50 GMT
So here, Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot is making this peer attend Magistrates Court....
Yet by Magna Carta the Lords can only be fined and sentenced by their equals or higher. As was the Lord Hanningfield case on 18 July 2016
The Jurisdiction is not actually in the court or building. It's in the person, the rank of the peer. Courts have to be held in local Jurisdictions (for convenience and circuit reasons) historically but the actual chess piece of the person is the Authority.
Therefore Lord Greville Ewan Janner actually could not be faced with arrest from any magistrates court. 14 August 2015 the YouTube video was uploaded. He is a Labour party peer, Ex MP. So that was actually about 1 year before that Hanningfield case. And the Alistair McCreath order made for certain a Jury cannot hear such cases against Lords in the Crown court.. therefore the Magistrates court certain is out of the question.
Its ridiculous that such a woman with her position would not have read up on or been interested in or under tha Magna Carta and the Edward III acts, as well as the Bill of Rights..
There is clearly an education issue with these people.
Actually, Baron Janner is deceased.
I don't think Emma Arbuthnot herself is a member of the House of Lords or a life peer herself?
It gets a bit ridiculous now, as the bus times and schedules are being tampered with and people messing around with things..
We know that Meredyyd ex Police Chief who operates Road Safety Support.. was in the Middle East upto no good...
Looks like the Arbuthnot family are intimately involved in security services and surveillance which is worrying... Also Sam Goozee was promoted and now works, or has been working at Westminster Magistrate's court... after being given the back handed promotion
This is all tied in with the Balfour Beatty plans going missing from Mi6 building or something as well no doubt..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2020 20:10:06 GMT
Somebody has also hacked my printer so it was behaving mysteriously and malfunctioning.. And now won't print clearly..
These are the type of diabolical and treacherous subversion of our freedoms, that war against our own citizens produces from the Lords and Government security services targeting individuals of certain abilities and birthright who are not allowed to achieve because they are considered a threat to those who battle us for supremacy
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2020 20:46:34 GMT
What actually IS legislation? The Law?
Its actually an Order. From a court. The Highest Authority (King)
Law itself.. is not a case, a defence, an argument. Because a Solicitor/barrister doesn't make law. Doesn't make an order.
A defence case, is material obtained and made, put together from events and records, statements of people to show something happened or explain why or how it happened or didn't happen.
It asks for an order. From a judge. Because a law (order) was broken.
Law is an order, to be obeyed, followed. An order by the King.
Likewise all judges, Citizens, Barons, the public.. have to obey the order. No matter when it was made or which King made it. All persons under the sovereign have to obey the order. (Law)
Now if broken.. it's a breech and offence and a lower peer or judge makes an order against the perpetrator.
Now if the perpetrator further disobeyed that order against them by a judge, they are punished further.
So... you have to look at law as "an order" such as "dont steal" or "dont fight" however its worded.
So therefore... the order by the king (or parliament) no matter if made in 1688 or 1820 or 2015... if it's still in effect... Tell us all... what to do. It has to be obeyed. Or we are breaking the order.
So... a Kings order... in the kings court AKA (the law)
1. Dont steal. (Applies to everyone, public, police, judges, lords) ok... it's an order against all subjects not to steal. A court order.
2. Right to petition. This IS an order. It's a court order. From the king. You need to see that. The order is that nobody shall be prosecuted for petitioning the king. (Parliament) and we know from the Painted chamber committee that includes investigations by petition against the police, judges and even ministers. So who is that order against? Well it's an order clearly against anyone who would prosecute someone. Citizens rarely bring prosecution these days. The only people bringing prosecutions are police chief officers and The Crown prosecution services 99% of the time. Therefore that ORDER by the king. And it IS an order... HAS ordered prosecutors not to bring prosecution against petitioners. They have been ordered by the court. The court of the king. Made law.
So if they break that law.. they are in breech of a court order.
Now you don't challenge that order in any criminal court, any Crown court. It was made in parliament. The higher court.
Judges, crown prosecution service and judges who are prosecuting petitioners.. are in breech of a court order. A 1688 order. Simple.
No different from if, a thief breaks the kings order (law) not to steal, he faces court for a breech of an order. And if his sentence is being carried out and say he fails to abide by an order from a court which can hear his case.. say the Magistrates court set an punnishment order, he is called back to court again.
But if the crown court heard the case. And he breaks the Crown court order... he doesn't go to the Magistrates court because it's an order from a higher court...
In this manner.... Because the kings court made an order, in parliament (law) that everyone must obey.. Which is that nobody can be prosecuted in a court for petitioning.. then no Magistrates or Crown court can hold a case, lawsuit, prosecution because actually what the kings court order was.... is that nobody SHALL BE PROSECUTED by any of those courts.
It's an order, already made. For Barristers, judges, police, Crown prosecution service staff to obey.
Just as the public obey the order made. Do not steal.
You don't go to a Magistrates court, therefore for an order if you are being prosecuted illegally... because the LAW.. IS A FUCKING ORDER. That's what law IS.
Why would you present a case in a Magistrates? That is a Kings order?? Its already a fucking order.
It's the kings order.
It's not... a bunch of stuff that a Solicitor put together from events, statements and facts of an event. To show something happened or whatever. That is what we call, a case. A defence, or mitigation. It's not an order from a court. A higher court. The king.
It's a bunch of stuff someone put together to prove a case to get an order from someone who can hear a case.
Where as, the right to petition IS AN ORDER that a case cannot be heard.
You aren't seeking an order. It IS an order.
You just have to claim it. Like with a GP fit note. That's eligibility. And you have a document. The ORDER has been made already...law by parliament that when a fit note is issued.. then this or that will happen.. a person shall do this, or that.. the law is invoked.. the order applied... what parliament ordered to happen.
The fit note is not a defence. Or mitigation.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2020 23:18:27 GMT
The fact is, that Emma Arbuthnot Chief magistrate and senior District Judge, has without doubt, conducted a grave and serious miscarriage of justice & defect in proceedings at Westminster Magistrates Court in 2015 with the Lord Janner of Braunstone case. Because although the Human Rights Act section 7.1b does say that a "Right" can be relied upon in any proceedings... That is only in emergency circumstance's, (for a political right such as Janner & Hanningfield claim) "Any proceedings" are provided for, because someone May not KNOW they have a right, may not understand the Right, or might have forgotten to claim the right... or for any other reason, It is not being helped by the other parties to recognise the right & for it to be furthered into proper effect. This is why rights can be backdated (such as a fit note) for the earlier period someone was ill. or suffered. Therefore time limits and "window to claim" in a specific session of proceedings are not limited to THOSE proceedings.. But earlier, or later proceedings CAN be relied upon to mention or claim the right if required. There are many types of proceedings and stages, though.... Preliminary, and post proceedings and "dual proceedings" with different parties. We aren't only talking about court proceedings... Sport, employment and domestic, Civil Criminal all might be in relation to One single matter.
So there are by the Human Rights act "no constraints" to when a right can be exercised & where.
And There is absolutely a serious defect with Emma Arbuthnot's Proceedings with Lord Janner. Because Yes those Proceedings COULD have relied on his Peerage Privilege's but it should NOT have been used in court proceedings & neither should Lord Hanningfield's Privileges either.
The Lord Hanningfield, Southwark Crown Court 18 July 2016 with Judge Alistair McCreath now renders the previous actions of Emma Arthbutnot "a perversion of the course of Justice" Because the case in a Lower court than Parliament (Both Crown & magistrates courts) cannot hear cases against a life peer, because of their rank. Only their equals can fine & judge them, or Parliament. How can Emma Arbuthnot still be in position as Senior District Judge? and Chief magistrates of a Court that has the Jurisdiction of the whole of the United Kingdom? After the Alistair McCreath Order at Crown Court level?
The Evidence could not have been heard. & a Jury Could not have heard it. It WAS relied upon at Southwark. & it COULD have been used. But Hanningfield really wasn't under any obligation to answer the summons. Although he did appear.
Emma Arbuthnot as Chief magistrate and senior District Judge Westminster Magistrates Court in the Lord Greville Ewan Janner of Braunstone QC case around Aug 14, 2015 did NOT HAVE AUTHORITY or JURISDICTION to FORCE a summons against Lord Janner against his Will.
He was a Leicester Labour MP and life peer who deceased Dec 2015.
The fact that Alistair McCreath DID make an order which absolutely rendered the previous Emma Arbuthnot trial as a serious defect in proceedings & a traitorous endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the realm of England and Ireland (as well as a perversion of the course of justice) is no excuse for.. on BOTH occasions... the fact that neither of those two Lords did have any legal obligation or requirement to appear & be summoned...
BECAUSE OF "THE ORDER" of the Law... the ORDER of a KING. THREE KINGS EVEN. KING JOHN Made an Order.. which IS the Magna Carta which can never be changed or revoked. as long as it exists. Edward III made an order of the second great charted AND William Orange ALSO made an ADDITIONAL ORDER of the 1688 Bill of Rights.. "illegal prosecutions".
These are all AN ORDER. From a Court. From none other than A KING. And an ORDER MUST BE OBEYED by ALL SUBJECTS...
Which INCLUDES, You, Me, The Chief Police Officer, The Crown Prosecutors, The District Judge, The Magistrates.. The Clerk of the Justices Sam Goozee, all of the Court Staff, receptionist, secretary, Legal Advisors, Head Legal Adviser... These are all.. "The Subjects".
They are Persons, Peers (Lords, Barons) Knights, Judges, Clerks, Secretary's.. all of RANK.. UNDER THE KING. No matter which King. Past or Present. And ORDER has been made.. by the king. no matter if it was made in 1015, 1688 or 2018
IT IS A COURT ORDER. That ALL HAVE TO OBEY THE COMMAND OF.
That..... NO PEER SHALL BE FINED OR JUDGED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THEIR EQUALS (or Higher) and as of 1688, only by Parliament. So of equal rank of Peer or above and Only in Parliament. The Court of Parliament.
Now that is an ORDER MADE. If anyone does breech that court order.. then they have broken the law. And THEY need to face court themselves for breach of an order (law)
Hanningfield and Janner were & are LORDS peers. Who have an ORDER in effect by a KING. backdated to 1688 & previous in addition.. that they shall NOT be fined or judged by (anyone) who is not their equal, and only in parliament. So Emma Arbuthnot had NO POWERS OR JURISDICTION to summon Janner what so ever.
Its true that the Right they use COULD be relied on in those proceedings if it had to be.. But as The LAW IN EFFECT IS AN ORDER... that Emma Arbuthnot is under the effect of to comply with & OBEY... She absolutely could NOT summon Janner. It was illegal.
In fact Alistair McCreaths "order" of "Not guilty" was not really an order.. it was merely a recognition of the Right. Which he did. Thus in obedience to "THE ORDER" of the Laws made by the previous Kings courts. (& parliament)
Also... The McCreath order on the 18th July 2016 has pretty much confirmed this absolutely now. As no more Lords will be facing Crown Court OR Magistrates Court. They are both Lower Courts of Jurisdiction than Parliament AND their Judges are lower rank than The Barons as well.
When a COURT ORDER IS MADE..... By Parliament, Ministers & Kings.... no matter what they order IS... Either "Nobody will steal anything" or "Nobody will hit anyone" It applies to all the subjects of the realm.. Barons, Knights, Police Chief Officers, Crown Prosecutors & District Judges & the Public.. The Order is none will steal. The ORDER MADE concerning "The Right to petition" is that NONE WILL PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO IS PETITIONING THE KING (Parliament) Which is an ORDER MADE that ALL will obey the command of. Barons will obey it, Knights will obey it, Police Chiefs Will obey it, Crown Prosecutors will obey it, The Clerk of the Justices will obey it the District Judge Will obey it AND the Subjects will... That NONE shall bring a prosecution against a petitioner. SO THEY ARE ORDERED.
Therefore.. there IS NO CASE TO HEAR BEFORE A COURT, OR A DISTRICT JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE. THE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. The Right Is just "claimed into effect" like as with the Sick Note/fit note. The Document is produced. & Recognised... And The ORDER MADE ALREADY IS THAT.. on production of a sick note.. The effect is this, or that... The Person is NOT defending anything.. there is NO defence material, or Mitigation.
Anything a Solicitor or Lawyer or Barrister "puts together".. any Facts, statements, argument or defence.. "material".. what IS THAT??? Its a load of material that a Solicitor HAS MADE, CREATEd, WRITTEN .. put together from statements, facts, events. For a Judge to assess, look at, evaluate. IN REGARD TO A CHARGE.
IT IS NOT AN ORDER. The Solicitors CASE is NOT AN ORDER.
NOW the LAW IS AN ORDER. THE LAW IS AN ORDDER THAT THERE WILL BE NO PROSECUTION. NO CASE, NO DEFENCE, NO MATERIAL.
BECAUSE THE KING DID MAKE AN ORDER THAT THERE WILL BE NO PROSECUTIONS, LAW SUIT BROUGH. And that is NOT the Magistrates or Judges business to do anything. Because like it or not, they are merely subjects who are there to obey the command of the LAW & ORDER.
LAW & ORDER.. A LAW & AN ORDER.
Now IF a District Judge Breeches the Kings order.... They have broken the Law. They have committed an illegal act. And IT IS THEY WHO SHALL HAVE A CHARGE BROUGH AGAINST THEM AND HAVE AN ORDER MADE AGAINST THEM IF THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY.
If a Case is heard in a CROWN court, and a person had broken an order of the kings law (don't steal) then the Crown Court which can hear the case, makes a further order that the person shall have a restraining order or whatever... Its an order made against them, because they broke an order. essentially. And the Magistrates Court is off limits, because the Crown Court orders cannot be heard by the Magistrates Court or dealt with.
When an Order is made by the KING.. that NO COURT OTHER THAN PARLIAMENT can deal with a case (petition) or matter concerning the peers... then that ORDER is that no Crown Court or Magistrates Court can deal with the matter.
And its Not actually just for the District Judge. Because it is an ORDER OF THE KINGS COURT.. ALL must obey it.. The Secretary at Court, The Security Guard, the Police Chief, Samuel Goozee, Clerk to the Justice's... all literally.... OBEY IT AS IF IT IS AN ORDER. Because it IS AN ORDER...
"An Order has been made" So How can the Secretary at a court list a case? when an order has been made it cant be listed? How can a Clerk of the Justices, organise & deal with documents when an order has been made that it cannot be dealt with? as it is illegal? and therefore because an order has previously so been made... how can it even end up on the desk of a District Judge? for them to even look at & do anything? let alone set a heating, trial or decide on anything.
THEY don't make an order. THE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE ALREADY WHICH IS AN ORDR AGAINST THEM. NOT TO ACT. NOT TO DO THE CASE. And absolutely Not to even be able to Say there is or is not an order from the King when there is without question an order from the king.
Literally...
I think the Court staff somehow do not believe that... members of the public.... are entitled to TELL THEM, INFORM THEM.. INDICATE TO THEM.....
EXCUSE ME. HERE IS AN ORDER FROM THE KING.. BACKDATED TO 1688 THE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE THE PROSECUTION CAN NOT TAKE PLACE. IT HAS BEEN ORDERED. I AM JUST TELLING YOU. THEREFORE YOU BEST STOP THE PROCEEDINGS. AND INFORM THE DISTRICT JUDGE OR NOT. EITHER WAY... YOU ARE ALL ORDERED NOT TO PROCEED WITH ANY LAW SUIT AGAINST THE PETITIONER when a claim is made & valid.
So Sam Gozeee should, have at Huddersfield Magistrates Court... under the Criminal Procedure rules 1.1 C Helped to further the overriding objective of that ORDER. of the KING William Orange. by making certain the Proceedings were stopped. And it was the Court staff obligation to help find any information & law that would help to secure that objective.
Not to.. in fact disobey the ORDER & COMMAND of the KING. Which Had clearly been produced to the Court. The LAW & ORDER.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 22, 2020 0:04:33 GMT
When you claim a sick note or the right to petition...
Even if you have already been sentenced or convicted.. You are not appealing a charge.
Therefore if it is a Magistrates court, you aren't asking for a re-hearing or submitting an appeal to that court or the Crown court.
Because there is no plea. There is no case to put to the court. There is no material which a Solicitor has compiled in relation to a charge. In defence. Or in mitigation.
You aren't asking a judge to look at a case again.
The Right to Petition and the Law concerning the sick notes... both under the human rights act and part 1.. of the overriding objectives..
You are producing to the court... "AN ORDER" Law and order.
Now an order from the High court. Not an order from the Royal Court of Justice not an order from the crown court.. or an order from any District Judge at any magistrates court...
You are... showing the court AN ORDER.. from Parliament.. King William Orange. A court order backdated 1688. The kings court at Westminster has ordered that... no person shall be prosecuted for petitioning the king/parliament.
And we know what that entails as it is set out about the Painted chamber committee.. as I stated... And that information is not a defence or appeal either. It is accompanying information and facts that "proves, validates, verification and understanding of AN ORDER.
Just as if a Crown court made an order itself. Regarding any matter or case. But the Crown courts orders are not parliament or the king. Parliament makes order (law) that all courts and staff.
All staff. Are subject to obey. Including Sam Goozee Clerk to the Justices.. now, DJ Samuel Goozee. Westminster..
And... if any person is having problems with any Magistrates court or Staff or any District judge failing to recognize and apply an order from a higher authority..
Then.. a person is within their rights to approach Westminster Magistrate's court, that has Jurisdiction of England.. and ask any of the staff.. or the Senior District Judge.. to recognize the ORDER.. being produced and apply the effect of that order to the case.
No differently than a Crown court order.
That is what you do when you claim a right. A right is law. A law, which is an order. With a right... there is only eligibility.
It's not a defence material at all that someone has put together..and you prove to a court.
An order is a law, an order of parliament.. And the order has immediate effect on the moment of eligibility is shown.
Eligibility is shown together with the order. The order (law) will state what eligibility is required for that order of law to be valid..
With the right for medical grounds to Sickness.. you are required to show or have a valid medical certificate...
With the medical exemption from wearing a seatbelt... it's an order. Of law. If you have a medical exemption certificate you are eligible for the order to be valid. It is not a defence or mitigation because its law, that has been ordered. To effect. It's an order that with such certificate there is no offence or crime to be charged with. It's not a defence or defence material. Having the certificate gives you a right. To not have to wear the seat belt. There is no charge to bring as no law is being broken..
This is where courts mix up a defence and plea with a "right" . Not guilty ple and defence... Guilty plea and mitigation.... That is putting in a case. There is a charge. If you plead not guilty you are not using a right. Because there is a charge. You are either going to prove, with evidence in a case that you didn't do something. Or something wasn't your fault. Or the prosecution evidence is incorrect or the witnesses are not telling the truth. That is all in relation to material about a charge of something unlawful you are accused of.
Mitigation is where you plead guilty but ask for less severe sentence because you are sorry or have a excuse for what you did.
Where as with a right... its LAW, An ORDER that says.... there is no offence in law you have broken. It was within the law what you did .. you have permission from an order by parliament that you could act. You were right to act. And if something is required to be shown with that order... The order requires a certain certificate.. Or a certain fit note. Or a petition to be produced.. Then the ORDER you show the court.. The law.. is valid.
And that doesn't need a District Judge. Because under the overriding objectives all parties are required to further those rights and orders.. every party. All staff of the court... Police, prosecutors, solicitors.. All can recognize a court order..
A court order is what you get through your letter box from a Court. Made by a Judge. A Crown court order out ranks a Magistrates court order... But a parliament order THE LAW out ranks both those courts.. because it's the order of a king, or queen.. or the parliament. No matter when it was made...
That's the point..
When it says... all prosecutions for petitioning the king are illegal. That order renders any prosecutions illegal.
No Magistrates court or Crown court can override that order. That Law.
That's the point. What else would it be for?
This is what many people don't understand Because they don't have the insight. The basic fundamental insight into life and application of thought and vision seeing. The obviously simple thing
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 22, 2020 1:57:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 22, 2020 21:17:53 GMT
This is the best basic brief of the History of parliament.. as there were some contradictory and confusing information I read from different sources
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 23, 2020 19:59:38 GMT
Citizens engaging in a large part of "policing" (before there was ever a police force) is a major Right & function of our ancient civilisations, rights & origin of democracy. Since the 1820s it has not been compulsory to help the police, But it is a major RIGHT to the use of policing laws.
Therefore there has always been a concern with witnesses giving false statements & around 1603 there were many bills passed & proceedings IN Parliament court (Star Chamber) With informers on trial, concerning falsification of evidence & statements.
Since magna carta in the 1015 period it has always been ALSO the Right of the citizens to REPORT & Complain about all officials, Sherriff's, constables, Knights & Barons to the Parliament. & bring evidence for their further investigation & Judgment in Parliament.
Therefore the Parliamentary privilege's of the Lords is only as old as the Right of the Subjects (Citizens) to actually complain about those figures, to a Higher authority, to ensure that there is no corruption, right being denied, injustices & other serious issues allowed to become a culture and custom.
This is a major attribute of what the Long Parliament made use of around 1640 with the Painted Chamber committees.
And re-affirmed later in the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Therefore it has always been an ORDER of the Kings Court, all through history that no-one should be prosecuted for Petitioning the Parliament concerning corruption & evil/bad customs & practices of the Authorities themselves
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 23, 2020 20:48:13 GMT
I will do a brief discussion on each clause of the magna carta in relation to our rights.& How it set out the foundations, origins & in fact basis of all existing laws & rights we still have.
When the meaning & principles are understood
17. Ordinary Lawsuits shall not follow the Royal Court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.
The Magna Carta articles #19-30 Foundation, basis & origins of modern law article 30 prevents our USE OF TRANSPORT BEING TAKEN FROM US (driving privilege's)
The Magna Carta articles #20-21 Foundation, basis & origins of modern law
The Magna Carta articles #21, 24, 29 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ORIGIN & FOUNDATION
All gravitating towards the Right to complaint to a higher authority (not appeal the decision concerning the offence case) but the conduct, integrity and legitimacy of the justices and staff..
where by the order is to be immediately remitted, just as if it were an appeal to a higher court of the charge..
Thereby the petition to parliament & complaint to the Judicial investigations, local advisory committee and Ministry of justice are to relieve the claimant , complainant from the sentence, order commitments
__________ The Magna Carta articles #24 & 30 SHALL NOT TAKE AWAY A PERSONS RIGHT TO USE THEIR TRANSPORT
The magna Carta article #38 ORIGIN OF REGULATOINS CONCERNING WITNESSES & STATEMENTS
The Magna Carta article #38 Basis, Foundation & principles of modern law & rights (2)
The Magna Carta articles #39 & 40 Basis, Foundation & principles of modern law & rights
The Magna Carta articles# 45, 48, 52 Emma Arbuthnot District Judges critical misstates
The Magna Carta article#55 BUILDING BLOCKS OF COMPLAINTS TO HIGHER AUTHORITY petition not appeal
Magna Carta Article #56 Rights & origins of modern principles of law
Magna Carta Article #57 Rights & origins of modern principles of law
Magna Carta Article #60 Rights & origins of modern principles of law
Magna Carta Article #61 Rights & origins of modern principles of law
Magna Carta Article #62 Rights & origins of modern principles of law
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 24, 2020 1:58:02 GMT
An order passed by the Kings court. For all Royal officials to obey the command of, including judges and officials of courts and all government committees and departments and ministry's
The orders and sentences made by Royal Justices against petitioners are illegal "The commitments" and are ordered to be without delay recended by all parties
As I suspected..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 24, 2020 21:29:33 GMT
The Royal justices ARE SUBJECT TO ORDERS made by PARLIAMENT & THE KING as if they are any ORDER MADE against a member of public by the Justices themselves.
Crown & Magistrates Courts, Justices & Royal Officers (Staff) are SUBJECT TO AN ORDER OF LAW. And if they refuse to comply with the ORDER of LAW.. The Claimant can Complaint to Parliament where by the Commitments, sentence, conviction, fine will be immediately rescinded by the offending court & justice. This is the Framework for the Petition & complaint (Not appeal against the charge) But a COMPLAINT OF UNLAWFUL ACTION BY THE COURT & JUSTICES THEMSELVES.
Which is to be of effect as if it were an appeal to a Higher court, But it is a complaint to parliament, By petition or complaint. This should include the Ministry of Justice & Judicial Investigations office. And if there are any ministers or Barons Associated with the facts & circumstances brought in the complaint.. Those Peers are NOT ALLOWED TO Sit in Parliament, either house, or make any such decision or involvement in the proceedings.
INCLUDING ANY MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OR LORDS WHO SIT ON THE SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE SERVICES. PARTICULARLY THOSE MARRIED TO TORY WIVES WHO ARE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGES SUCH AS EMMA ARBUTHNOT
So they have basically been (Diverting) Complaints against Justice's to the very poor "Judicial Investigations office" where Asian Employees are strategically put in place to hinder complaints. Only Certain complaints are looked into.. say shouting, swearing or Physical abuse. They refuse to acknowledge "illegal" actions, fraud, lies and other corrupt practices, customs & culture as a legitimate complaint.
When it ACTUALLY HAS A LAWFUL RIGHT OF COMPLAINT/PETITION TO PARLIAMENT.. AS REAL & STRONG AS ANY APPEAL TO A CROWN COURT. OR HIGH COURT. But it is not an appeal against the decision & case presented. It actually is complaint, crime report against the Justices. They have been acting as if no such complaints procedure exists. Thereby The Magistrates & Judges have escaped being prosecuted by Parliament. And the Bad customs & Culture has grown out of control. The "petition" to Parliament even Without any charges against (you) is literally the same as if there is a charge against you & you raise complaint over illegal orders, rights being denied unlawfully, corruption & other complaints.
That currently the Judicial Investigations office are pretending do not exist, blanking or making up excuses saying that they cannot do anything... Basically they are TRYING TO CLAIM that EVERYTHIG is the Judges decision to make... The (order) decision cannot be complained about, only by appeal. Which is absolutely not the case at all.
Hameera Chaudhry-Khan Olukemi Obafemi1 Rumana Akthar These people have been put in place, given incorrect directions & training by the Ministry of Justice and are denying us a serious complaints process that exists in law and is as serious as an "appeal" but by a different reason & process of complaint of illegal actions. Where by our order must be rescinded as with an appeal. Also The Petitions committee have been misinformed as well and are blocking & obstructing petitions being published & complaints. Therefore bad customs & practices have flourished
Warrants & Summons (All Commitments are illegal) ILLEGAL PROSECUTION. Where a complaint or petition is made to a Higher Authority PARLIAMENT (not appeal to a Higher court) All commitments are to be rescinded as if it were an appeal to the decision. It is not an appeal to the decision it is a complaint against the Royal Justice and or Staff, Chief Police officer, Crown Prosecution service. And Such Appeal against ILLEGAL Orders BREECH OF RIGHTS & FRAUD.. - The Commitments are immediately annulled Fines, Driving Disqualifications, and other commitments.
|
|