|
Post by Administrator on Jun 13, 2020 15:40:46 GMT
Ministers and Parliament lack of insight and understanding with party bias opposing our unaffiliated rights.
the modern political parties are denying our existing ancient right to complain, and oppose them. we no longer have local ministers surgeries representing the local people but local offices of political parties who are in fact denying our rights and have stolen our free speech, right to petition and are holding us to their regimes that are perverting the course of politics
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 13, 2020 17:30:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 13, 2020 18:18:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 14, 2020 23:41:22 GMT
THE IMPOSSSIBILITY OF THE MAKING OF RIGHT & LAW IN PARLIAMENT TO NOT HAVE EFFECTS IN THE JUDICIARY
THE IMPOSSSIBILITY OF THE MAKING OF RIGHT & LAW IN PARLIAMENT & CONSEQUENCES OF ITS DEBATE, CHANGE, CHALLENGE & ISSUES NOT HAVING DIRECT EFFECT ON THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, COURTS AND ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHEN RIGHTS ARE VALID AND ACTIVELY USED BETWEEN ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 2:43:57 GMT
Well...
As you may or may not know, I haven't been well recently... although everyone else has been off work mostly due to this pandemic.
I installed an "information station" on site, to promote this information and cause...
And I have made some progress where I am in a position to claim my hours of probation for voluntary work I have done. And when I was prosecuted previously for criminal damage and was made to do 200 hours unpaid work, when it was not an offence
(Extinction rebellion made good progress for us)
So hopefully at least my probation can be resolved.
But as for the Leicester case and my driving licence.. that may be the technical part..
Today though, in fact just now.. I have resumed some research and now I find more information for this topic which goes into much greater detail about the petitioning the Lords and Parliament and the history of it.
That is if we can trust it.
But it does prove the process exists, and existed
So.. I will add this information in now.
And I think all my work in this topic previous is extremely important still and correct because what I have studied is concerning the Person (subject) that is BRINGING a case....
By petition, raising a case. Not an appeal, but bringing an affidavit or charges, evidence by petition.. Of great importance which is where the protection from courts and authorities comes in.
So here is some information I did not find previously
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 2:44:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 2:50:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 2:58:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 3:03:57 GMT
So the fact is.. That regardless of the mode or method of to whom the cause is brought before (the case)
The 1688 Bill of Rights is actually there to protect the individual subject/s that are going about bringing the petition/case
Especially when serious evidence concerns the authorities and those in powerful positions.
In order that there is no Intervention or obstruction to a petition being made and delivered...
Therefore it is pure logic that there is a right to bring a case against the authorities without the authorities intervention.
It is not an "appeal" to use such a right because it is an entirely separate affair that is immune from intervention of the lower courts or any court for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 20, 2020 4:06:11 GMT
The only thing with the wikipedia information is that is doesn't really mention the Civil War and use of the Procedure in the greatest historical period in English history which is Oliver Cromwell saga..
Which I covered anyway..
It seems like parliament has tried to dumb down the facts surrounding the right, for obvious reasons to try keep themselves out of trouble or less liable...
I think its important to keep the lower courts out of the equation when you have evidence against higher courts particularly when a jury is not presen in Magistrates courts so a case concerning peers cant be held there... according to the previous details.
And the people are the full jury anyway ( who vote) in referendums for example.
Fair enough if they can be put before a Jury, but very big National cases aren't heard in Magistrates courts or regional courts so a magistrates court would have no authority or buisness making legal intervention in a case that was above their jurisdiction anyway and especially when it may in fact have evidence against those courts judges or many courts.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 22, 2020 21:37:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 22, 2020 21:50:48 GMT
Wow so part 1 is still in effect www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMar/1/21Of the Great Seal act.. Seems that if there is anything wrong such as Corruption then there can be commissioners put in place... to act.. But also this act "empowers" all other laws and rights by any authority or law/right given in any other act... So basically this would .. By the POWER of the great seal itself... Give a subject "the right to petition" through effect of the 1688 bill of rights, right to petition.. It's the Great Seal of England itself that empowers the law and enactments into effect.. You don't actually need any ministers, barons or Lords to say you have a right or dont have a right.. When a right it given to you by law and empowered through the Great Seal of England. It clear says any powers and authority that be ... So... literally... If you are actually bringing investigation and charges against corrupt evil ministers or even the chancellor and judges.. The great seal gives the power to do this so long as it invokes a written law that you have the right to.. Which there is such a law!! Right to petition, and all commitments and prosecutions for doing so are illegal. By the power of the great seal of England
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 22, 2020 22:52:23 GMT
It's not co-incidence that the Great Seal act AND the Bill of Rights are both 1688.
And work together in perfect harmony...
Also... When the entire Ministry of Justice and Magistrates who have ALL participated in Road Traffic offence cases..
Are all subject to investigation concerning corruption..
There is no doubt what so ever that Lords, including those in the Supreme court also must be under scrutiny..
Therefore the Chancellor's place must be executed..
Also its clear that the voters, subjects have power, under the great seal . Given by the 1688 bill of rights..
To protection from all prosecutions and commitments against them.. In order to deliver the evidence and bring to to parliament because the local courts are not for national matters that involve all the regional courts and police forces..
In fact... even gathering evidence for a public enquiry or ombudsman would grant such protection from the courts..
Because bringing evidence on a greivence or case, by petition is exactly what it is for.. (the right)
And whatever department or committee best suited the government clerks can see that is appropriately forwarded..
Public petitions are general anyway. All subjects and matters.
....
Another thing is this... We vote in our parliament and the people have 5he right to remove them..
A large number of people with factual evidence against MPs and Lords not only have the right to bring such evidence to parliament... they themselves can remove all MPs including the Prime Minister..
And really Lords and Barons who are accused cannot participate in their own trial as judges.. even Supreme court judges...
So... the execution of the Lord Chancellor.. makes sense because then the responsibility is put to commissioners...
Its unlikely that every single Baron & Lord would be accused... any that haven't actually been involved in the courts system actually could be put to the task of judging the other peers..
To be honest... I don't actually believe you NEED a Supreme court because the authority is in the peers...
They just currently are sitting in the Supreme court. It's still based on and founded from the previous system and past framework..
It's just a matter of formality.. Well.. would think so..
Still..
The fact is that the Great Seal act and Bill of Rights gives power and effect to us being able to...
"Act and bring evidence by petition without being prosecuted or orders made against us for doing so"
No matter which court, parliament, committee, ombudsman or Supreme court heard the evidence.. its essentially the one and same thing..
Bringing evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 22, 2020 23:37:50 GMT
This Seal invokes the power for anyone to do what the laws passed by this seals authority gives them to do. And there is only one single law, in one act which prevents prosecutions and commitments being made against a subject (citizen) And that is when they are bringing petition. To Her Majesty's government. No Judge, police officer, Crown prosecutor can bring prosecution against a person or make a judgment (commitment) against a subject (Citizen) for such petitioning activities.. Which are required in order to deliver the petition before the Government. So... Literally any such commitments or prosecutions are invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 23, 2020 4:32:03 GMT
|
|