|
Post by Administrator on Mar 31, 2020 18:37:44 GMT
I just don't believe you need a Habeas Corpus for the Right to Petition. At least not since 1688. There are mentions of using it to enforce a right... pre 1688... But I think that bill was created to make a direct overriding order of law to prevent a prosecution being initiated and rendering already from that time onwards that the prosecution and all commitments are of legal effect "illegal" unlawful, not lawful therefore how can any prosecution or sentence BE of validity or effect?
I just don't think you have to actually go before the court. Because a sick note is a right being exercised and you sent it by post. Or email and it gives effect to what it is made to do. Therefore I just don't think you need the Habeas Corpus...
The petition itself and any documental authentication of the petitioning.. is equal to the Sick note. The Probation officer or Crown Prosecutor or Police are under legal requirement to help further its effect and claim.. and also further understand of it
They aren't paid to challenge a rights claim but to help with it And any right they don't know about they are under obligation to learn and further their understanding...
Unfortunately with political things.. there is usually an opposition.. and if you are being challenged by the police . CPS, Court when you are investigating the Court..
Its ridiculous and a contradiction to have to go before any Judges who are or may be connected to your political Greivences and investigations by circumstances or facts.
In fact the Circumstances of the fact road traffic enforcement investigations intimately are connected to police and courts.. literally puts all courts off limits to even hear a habeas corpus.
Those habeas Corpus are for rights such as passports and exile, things like that .
Yes those under the Human Rights act when an offence is not made by the courts simply for not complying with the human rights act 1998..
The critical details of the particular right...
"The right to petition" ALL commitments by courts are illegal therefore how can there be any commitments to require a habeas corpus?! There can't be.. because the habeas Corpus is illegal...
Literally....
And the courts will despise this.. but without contest the order is made from the King William III.. dated from 1688 that all prosecutions and commitments ARE illegal. Where a petitioning is valid.
Which means you are covered by that order of the highest court if you are petitioning.
Literally you lay the document.. And it's done.. it's of legal effect.
You literally walk free. Or can have a driving licence back, in the same way as you don't need to attend community service if you have the sick note..
You don't need a habeas corpus when you appeal a charge.
You don't go before a court, to have an order lifted or temporarily removed when you submit appeal forms to Crown court from magistrates court. Why? Because it is deferred Jurisdiction to another authority. Higher.
And with the petition to parliament it was already a case being deferred to prior to any charges being brought.. in fact you already were bringing a case yourself..
So there is also the matter of Double Jeopardy to raise in addition because facts and circumstances of any charge are inseparable from the those actions which are also performed for the petition to parliament Jurisdiction. That's the entire point.
So really the parliament committee, ministers or Lord Chief Justice should without delay.. intervene and have the Magistrates court lift, pause or stay or whatever is is they do.. as if the matter was going to another court.. which is IS and already was.
I think you will find that is the logical and correct procedure. And that with this particular right it is unique from the other more commonly known rights that are claimed that may require habeas corpus
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 14:33:52 GMT
The Habeas Corpus only formally entered English law in 1679 so that is clearly sequentially after the 1688 Bill of Rights.. not that long afterwards in fact only ten years after. Clearly there may have been problems with people having their right to petition recognized and applied?
This American lawyer clear indicates that it can be used in relation to both probation service and driving licence matters and even post conviction.
I still don't think you have to be present in person when actually being summoned and having a warrant issued is illegal.
Also, you don't need to be present when your probation officer puts matters before the court in your absence such as extension of date for completion of a community service order, due to being ill or sick, suffering following issue if a GP sick note. As I have already asked about it and yes the probation service can go before the court and get orders changed and such things in relation to rights claims..
Therefore under part 1.1C of the Criminal procedure rules overriding objectives it IS their obligation to help. And to get the court to recognize and apply rights claims (usually in your absence) and there is no real difference between the process. It's just a different kind of right. By the same processing and same responsibility of the probation officer.
If it's a driving licence, the DVLA IS the responsible party for the licence, in the same way the probation officer is the responsible party for the community service order. In fact as its says ALL parties MUST help to further that recognition and understanding of the right to effect..
The DVLA are responsible as much as the Probation officer. This is why our rights are all Covered by National Insurance cover
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 14:58:49 GMT
Ok! Here... UK procedure www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-87-applications-for-writ-of-habeas-corpusI note that, the detention is reference also to any (restrictions or commitments) such as probation order and driving restrictions.. Another party can represent the claimant. And obviously if you can't drive to a far away place, or if you are in prison or being represented by a probation officer.. Particularly as this is actually a rights claim.. your probation officer certainly can and should therefore make the application provided you give them all the details of the right you are claiming and supporting documents. I also note that it IS within the rules that a judge can do this without a hearing.. by paper and at their office.. And I would suggest that given the extent and effect of the law of this particular right, that all commitments are illegal..it would not be fair or right to make the claimant have to appear at the court. And I suggest that this is why the procedure exists within the rules, for this to be done in such a manner. Also I note this is similar to the probation officer acting on behalf of a claimant for Illness claims in relation to an order, where the claimant is not required to attend. Also as the writ requires immediate action.. If there was defect in proceedings in the initial trial, as the first video states.. The original Solicitor would be obliged to act to correct the matter.. And I note that at my hearing and in relation to me first claiming the right... It certainly was not immediate. It was a lengthy time waiting between hearing dates and so forth.. so it was really not properly recognized.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 15:25:17 GMT
Look...
The only problem with this, is... That it is for "The High Court"
Which is such as the Royal courts of Justice. And in that court is the Judicial investigations conduct office...
And complaint of defect in proceedings and conduct of a Judge is equal to an appeal. In effect...
It can result in any commitments being lifted.
The other thing is that because the "petition" itself.... IS IN EFFECT and affidavit TO PARLIAMENT...
Which is a higher authority than the high court itself..
You are.. by petitioning parliament particularly in regards to a criminal investigation you are conducting.. Literally already submitted of such affidavit..
Because that is what the petition IS. And carried out under the law of the Right to Petition where by any order against you as petitioner from another court, is illegal, unlawful.
So it is in fact above the High court. And really as the Lord Chief justice and Lord Chancellor are both members of parliament.. and in charge of the JCIO office.. THEY should act to have any commitments made against a petitioner lifted.. because the petition under the Right to petition.. is an affidavit to parliament, it is a case. Already filed
Particularly with the petition committee and any other party.. by either email attachments by petition on the change.org website or written by hand.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 16:58:59 GMT
There are some things they are not telling us, or not stating, on purpose.. www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part08Firstly... the requirement to recognize a right claim under the criminal procedure rules... is under THOSE rules. There and then. So it's not to be hear at a civil court. The Habeas corpus rules are for High Court. And these part 8 procedures are for Civil court... but why would you be under detention or arrest at Civil court ? When its usually for land disputes, claims, business law, Custody of children and so forth? Well.. I mean you don't start a criminal trial at County court... Also slyly in the criminal rules they say a right has to be recognized (obviously applied immediately) As there shall be no delay or fee to a right) such as a GP sick note) But they only bother to remind us that it's all parties obligation to HELP and further the objective.. in the civil rules.. Where in the criminal rules its definitely all parties requirement to recognize the right (yet they fail to remind us clearly to help further it) when obviously the Probation service DO act to help further it.. Also parliament is above the High Court anyway! So its automatically above appeal of the High Court and the habeas corpus.. Now the Habeas Corpus says it's used by part 8.. which I've linked here above.. And in that part it does say that there can be an enactment (of law) or a special rule where by those rules and procedures dont apply or are not required. And the right to petition is clearly one of those special instances.. It looks like I will be able to use this.. But the main question is... HOW!? Is it happening that in a Magistrates court.... a probation officer goes in.. without the defendant present.. and by using (a right) of the sick note.. gets an order CHANGED.. modified, ? I am absolutely certain that this is not limited to that Specific right. (The sick note) and it will apply to other rights as well... it has to. Because there is not only one type of right that can be used, claimed.. and the action clearly can be taken by the Magistrates court. Therefore I am quite certain that where special provisions in law, special enactments apply and and are invoked that the usual rules, procedures don't apply. And it clearly says that in these rules.. In relation to the Habeas Corpus under part 8 as well... And as I have already claimed the right with all parties and laid the facts and statements.. then really I have already entered claim.. because there is not even any requirement to comply with any of these rules.. by the merit of that enactment.. "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king and all prosecutions and commitments for doing so are illegal" And I show the petitioning I am doing to parliament which is in effect an affidavit of evidence against the police, Highways England, department of Transport, ministers, ministry of Justice, Crown prosecution service, local council Highways departments by form of "petition" And this is clearly set out in the 1640 long parliament records as existing so the basis is there... It's in effect a case to a higher court than the high court. So literally the order by the Magistrates court must be lifted... As it's a referral to a higher authority predating the charges against me. Which cannot intervene by merit of additional "double Jeopardy" Now the double Jeopardy itself could be excersised through habeas Corpus.. if it were only double Jeopardy.. But because of the fact it is in relation to the "Right to Petition" .... The right to petition removes the requirement to fulfill habeas Corpus itself, and submit to the high court by habeas corpus... Because clearly it's a special enactment itself. And therefore it clearly states under such circumstances that none of the rules or requirements in part 8 are needed.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 17:07:51 GMT
Its says county court... but what would you be doing in Civil proceedings in a county court for a criminal charge? When its Criminal procedure rules? Well... DJ FUDGE of Leicester Magistrates court claimed it was a Civil matter.. even though I claimed the right to petition under the Criminal procedure rules and it was to be recognized and applied under those rules... As the civil procedure rules do not list for Magistrates courts!! But let's go with what DJ Fudge said... and go with this procedure I was given before DJ WATSON in a Civil matter still listed as a criminal case at a Magistrates court... Well the habeas corpus rules are for High court (civil) but they say to use this part 8 to apply... and now its talking about county court (obviously for other things as well) .. you might have double Jeopardy in a Civil case for example..) Now I would say that part 1.1C of the Criminal procedure rules are such an enactment and provision rule that say a rights claim is to be recognized at the time it is first made, at the Magistrates court under criminal rules. And we know the fit notes are so being put to effect there as well. We know the ministers are not being straight with us... because they are choosing to include extra information about essentially the same thing.... But in different rules.. Civil procedure rules... v Criminal procedure rules For the same rights recognition.. They are just being clever by explaining it a bit more or less thoroughly in each set of rules, when it's the same thing... www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-87-applications-for-writ-of-habeas-corpusLook at this... 87.2 (3) This clearly is a duty Solicitor and also a probation officer as with the sick note use... no matter which court it is used at. The ridiculous thing is that a petition bringing evidence to parliament IS an affidavit itself!! TO a court... (parliament) this is the entire point of why other courts cannot intervene in those proceedings and investigations... Because it is already proceedings and by rules of double Jeopardy as well... fact and circumstances of that investigation cannot be heard at another court particularly lower courts than where the petition is laid to... It's with question a special rule, law and enactment that clearly gives legal exemption from the usual habeas corpus rules... and applies by effect of enactment directly .. And again the Government aren't being clear with us... They only use the word "detention" yet the habeas Corpus as we know the American lawyer states in the earlier video.. youtu.be/HYq8QzNkSH0Can be used to lift any type of commitment .. detention, probation, driving licence restrictions... any type of order or arrest, warrant, summons is a "commitment" by a court or authority (police Chief officer) they don't make that clear in the English rules, but it DOES mean that..... because that IS the point of using it. To be released from being held to commitments... For example double Jeopardy if two cases are being brought concerning the same facts or circumstances... A special enactment clearly would apply. And its clearly provided for in the rules. Therefore the Enactment itself... it to be applied... And I believe that it's not the High Court but the Magistrates court that is under legal obligation to apply the enactment.. In fact the Privy Council, Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, or Queen can make the order.. But I believe the law itself as an order renders the Commitment void and of no effect anyway... but how can you get your money back?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 18:01:59 GMT
This is ridiculous as it amount's to.. with the Right law used (enactment) basically that the rules don't have to apply or even be followed in certain circumstances. www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part08Ok.. this is the main point.... right here.... www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part08/pd_part08a#22.1SEE IT LISTS PETITIONSBut an application for petitions under the 1688 Bill of Rights is NOT listed because of the FACT THE HIGH COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION IN THOSE PETITIONS. what it does do in this part does identify with both petitions & affidavits So we can IDENTIFY the affidavit can be in PETITION. and it can be dealt with by a court OTHER than in this provision table which IS PARLIAMENT! It gives us an indication of what applications "particulars would include", though I just don't know who To apply to, to get this resolved because It really should be the Petitions Committee, The JCOI office, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor or local MP that asks parliament to direct the offending Court/District Judge to lift the illegal commitment. I still believe that the Probation officer can ask the Judge at the Magistrates Court to lift the order, in the same way an order is changed when you lay a fit note because otherwise they wouldn't even be able to do that. This clearly identifies & recognises a Petition as can be an affidavit in the form of a petition, to a higher court than the High Court. And it is entered under the 1688 Bill of Rights. Right to petition. (directly to parliament) In the same way these Bills of Sale Act 1878, Application under the Public Trustee Act 1906, Proceedings under the Trustee Act 1925 and all other applications under table C are made to the High Court.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 18:10:45 GMT
_________________________________________ Just a few separate points of the acknowledgment of service (the other party respondent) www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part10Acknowledgement of service... This is ridiculous, because when you submit a habeas corpus to the High court... the Party you are complaining about (respondent) IS THE MAGISTRATES COURT (DJ WATSON) which is why it should be the JCIO office who deals with the complaint against the judge of illegal commitment/prosecution. This is why that conduct office is within the Royal Courts of Justice. Either way, the Police & CPS are also respondents jointly. But rule 10.1 is for the (respondent) - in this case of my claim it would be DJ Watson (Leicester magistrates court) and how can they dispute the jurisdiction of the High court?! It was ME who was disputing (In writing) the Jurisdiction of the MAGISTRATES COURT (DJ WATSON) in MY OWN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE response to the ORIGINAL SUMMONS! disputing the Jurisdiction of the Magistrates court, which they ignored (& it could have been dealt with without a hearing). Its so infuriating. The Entire point is that the HIGH COURT (Royal court of justice) doesn't even have jurisdiction, because my petitioning it to Parliament, above it. So why would I be submitting habeas corpus to the Royal Courts of Justice using part 8? When Parliament is above the High Court?! Its ridiculous. Also the Use of these forms is mostly for Civil Matters. I think there are some intentional mistakes by ministers in order to cover up this "criminal matters" avenue which clearly exists... By petition & to the Parliament & Lords.. Not only for Appeals, but disputes as well.. and reports against Judges breaking the law & with defects in proceedings. And as for the "Default judgments" part 12... www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part12How can you obtain a default judgment when ALL Commitments & prosecutions by the court are "illegal". They cannot make a default judgment because they cannot make any judgment at all. They don't have jurisdiction. What IS for certain is that you CAN use Habeas Corpus, with part * stating the "Right to Petition" as an affidavit directly to parliament. The Right to petition IS an enactment with special rules & enactments of law and therefore none of the part 8 rules apply to be required to be complied with or followed. There can be no default judgment either, because there is no Jurisdiction from either the High Court nor the Magistrates Court OR the County Court.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 18:52:14 GMT
look, simply put...…
Under the Criminal Procedure rules 2015 part 1.1C (not the Civil Procedure rules)
a Rights claim is Entered. To be Recognized (MUST BE) and it is the responsibility of all parties to HELP further the understanding & recognition & application of this right) in relation to when it was laid claim to.
It IS to be recognized, as a PRE EXISTING (application) to a HIGHER COURT THAN THE HIGH COURT. Higher than the Royal Courts of Justice. An affidavit , case of evidence & investigation work, to parliament. In the Form of a Petition. & petitions. Over time. Together containing all relevant & required particulars & details, mini statements, evidence, photos, videos gathered... By enactment of "The 1688 Bill of Rights" Right to petition.
& it is above the Jurisdiction of the Magistrates, County & High Courts.
& the Supporting basis for that (which is not a skeleton argument) but simply proof of the existence of this procedure, which is a special one.. Is in the 1640s Long Parliament Painted Chamber sessions. The Procedure id re-affirmed in the 1688 Bill of Rights. & for illegal prosecutions.. by the Kings Bench (Queens Bench) Division, and all lower courts, plea side & Civil, ALL commitments b those courts are illegal. & there are no commitments to any of their rules or provisions. The Offending Judge is under direct legal order of enactment to change any order that is illegal by that enactment of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
And its the requirement of the Probation officer & all other parties to Help. The Habeas Corpus is not really required. And if it was, the enactment of the provisions used.. would render all the part 8 requirements invalid anyway & therefore no hearing is required. & the matter can be corrected by the Judge without any hearing. or requirement of any other rule. That is clear.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 2, 2020 22:45:16 GMT
OKreally had enough now.... These are rules for dispute of court jurisdiction. www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part11And I complied with all of these rules. At the start within time. & have never given up my dispute against court jurisdiction, in fact I have been working to investigate & further the understanding ever since I made the Claim. In fact my First claim was to Huddersfield Magistrates Court. I did in writing claim jurisdiction dispute and lay all of the evidence... There was enough evidence for the court to accept the claim back then. They are supposed to help investigate the claim further themselves, the court office & all parties. This therefore doesn't require habeas corpus to the High Court, because it is not within the jurisdiction of the High court. & we know that in the Lord Hanningfield case a simple "Representation in writing is submitted" which Is what I did. In good time with enough material to validate the claim my enactment of law, as it was and evidence of my petitioning. There should not have been any delay, in fact.. and there should not have been any hearing or trial anyway..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 3, 2020 2:07:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 3, 2020 2:13:46 GMT
I don't think DJ Watson is capable of comprehending it though... And I believe that's why they set the rules out a certain way, in fact to create inconsistently on purpose so that only certain people will fully understand it
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 3, 2020 17:21:05 GMT
Surely the Actual petitions themselves as well as the letters from the petition committee acknowledgement of petitioning work are "Acknowledgement of being served on parliament and yourself also likewise..
Its acknowledgement of service between the petitioner and HM Government, parliament.
The Jeremy Johnson QC observations on behalf of the House of Lords Authorities was a representation under part 11 - Disputing the Courts Jurisdiction..
Or rather "reminding" the court of it
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 7, 2020 0:09:31 GMT
Just for reference of TERMS so we know "petition" with parliament & grievance's, errors & not appeals, but actually complaints, affidavits are recognized & official legal proceedings... That an Acknowledgment of service can be engaged in with parliament for, regardless of if the House of Lords or supreme court is a venue of appeal... Note that with the Right to petition it is US that is bringing proceedings TO parliament. We are not appealing anything. It is above the Magistrates Court & Crown Court & High Court. A magistrates court cannot intervene in facts & circumstances that are proceedings with Crown Court. & by the same basis the Magistrates Court cannot intervene in facts & circumstances of proceedings brought to parliament.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Apr 7, 2020 0:43:34 GMT
|
|