Post by Administrator on Dec 30, 2020 23:47:39 GMT
Ive found the relevance of this, quite significant especially in study of the origins of the "right to object" in building and planning as well as in grievances as well.. because also petition for marriage and divorce is connected
Speak now or forever hold your peace is a phrase that has been taken from a certain ceremony and is now used in everyday language. This phrase is derived from the Christian marriage ceremony. ... During medieval times, communication between distant communities was at best, spotty.
Now, in law itself especially when seeking employment of a Lawyer..
The Lawyer should be "unbiased" neutral.
So its actually not ridiculous to actually ask a lawyer, Crown prosecutor or even a probation officer .
If in carrying out their duties...
If there is "any personal reason why your representation, complaint or other request for work" cannot be 100% honestly and truthfully undertaken.. may they let that reason be know now"
Because really it may be that even a paid, employed lawyer might not be best representing your interests to their full or honest capacity..
Basically it's good to check that they are 100% behind you.
Post by Administrator on Jan 19, 2021 16:11:51 GMT
Dam YouTube... Even banned Trump while he is still president.. Absolutely illegal. Their Maverick young lawyers are wack. And seriously have "issues"
They even banned TalkRadio briefly!
I wish to further Restate my other previous claim with you...
In particular the Warner Brothers claims against my videos.
I have the right to use and upload ANY media, content of material that I DEEM I need or want to use.
That is the privilege of Rights that political channels are legally entitled to and able to enforce against YouTube.
The REASON is that YouTube does not have a lawful right of "intervention" in a political cause, case.
Because YouTube would be effecting, hindering, controlling or otherwise steering or making a decision on a matter that is not their own political cause, buisness, its a person's case. Legal political action.
You would be failing or effecting the evidence.
You are not a court. You are not the government.
You didn't have the right to block or remove Donald Trump while he was the president. No matter what your legal team believes. They are wrong.
Copyright also is only a legal action and prosecution... and you can only take actions because of Copyright law.
When a person is doing political videos and channels particularly as evidence to Government... its protected under the right to Petition.
ALL* prosecutions are illegal against the petitioning entity.
That channels and videos are exempt from any and all legal actions.
Because you can't interfere in a political action.
Its not your place or position to evaluate a video or Copyright claim... and you to decide if YOU deem it is or is not in violation. And neither can Warner Brother either.
Warner Brothers does NOT have right to enforcing their Copyright protection through law... WHEN A CHANNEL is exempt from LAW. From being prosecuted against.
Staff at Warner bros might have political positions about the cause/case to government.
Its not the RIGHT of any organisation, individuals, entity, corporation, artist or other group.. Be it Warner, YouTube , Facebook or any private person..
To act to effect the course of proceedings in a political action to government.
Only PARLIAMENT or CONGRESS can make any decisions on the matter.
No criminal court has the right to intervention.
And YouTube ultimately only acts with authority that can be enforced through the courts.
The Right to Petition exists in order to even bring JUDGES and MINISTERS and COUNCILLORS to justice such as impeachment or by debate in the Government.
Youtube is NOT PERMITTED (you don't have the legal right) to decide what a person's evidence is, or should be or what content THEY should or should not use...
Warner Brothers cannot assess or decide which of their Copyrighted material ANOTHER person needs, or is allowed to use.
Because a political action is NATIONAL, SERIOUS, cause/case.
The Copyright holder has no legal right to withhold anything that is evidence, example or even included.. in a person's body of material brough under the Right to Petition.
It would be like... this.... look at LOWER courts than the Congress and Parliament
Criminal courts are a lower jurisdiction..
How can Warner Brothers intervene in a police investigation and prosecute the police for use of any song, music, video??
If a person disappeared and the police were looking for witnesses... on a date/time.. if a song was being played loud in the street, or if they were inside a cinema..
The police can publish a call for witness to come forward.. anyone who heard a song playing at a time or place.. people might not know the song by name... only by hearing it.. So if the police go on radio and ask if anyone heard a song playing at a time or date... to come forward and contact them..
The radio station is not going to give gratuity for playing that song. Nor do the police need permission.
Its material required as part of the proceedings and investigation.
Warner Brothers has no right to intervention because it will effect the investigation. The police certainly don't need to ask permission.
This is material used "in proceedings"
Warner Brothers and YouTube are NOT directing the investigation. They have NO RIGHT no legal capacity of intervention or legal action against the police at all. The police have Right, privilege and interest to use that material if they so deem to.
Now, its a legal right.
Petitioning government IS proceedings ABOVE the criminal court level. The Criminal court itself even cannot intervene. Because Police, Judges, MINISTERS can be the Subject of the political action, cause, campaign (case) brought to government.
If you are wanting to change the law or make a law...
A JUDGE or MINISTER themselves might not want you to succeed in making that law or changing it.. They are not allowed to use their position in the criminal court to intervene..
IF MY VIDEO AND EVIDENCE WAS ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A LAW TO BAN YOUTUBE AND MAKE YOUTUBE ILLEGAL OR A LAW TO STOP WARNER BROTHERS FROM HAVING ANY COPYRIGHT AT ALL.....
YOUTUBE AND WARNER BROTHERS INSTANTLY HAVE AN INTERNET IN OPPOSITION AND PREVENTING THAT POLITICAL CAUSE FROM SUCCEEDING.
BUT YOU CAN NOT TAKE DOWN OR EFFECT THE VIDEOS OR EVIDENCE.
BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO.
YOUTUBE HAS NO AUTHORITY OR RIGHT TO INTERVENTION IN A POLITICAL CAUSE BY PETITION . AND THAT INCLUDES ALL EVIDENCE, INFORMATION AND MATERIAL USED FOR THAT CAUSE.
YOU CAN NOT INTERVENE.
IT IS ILLEGAL.
BECAUSE THE COURTS ARE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ENFORCE YOUR ACTIONS. BY ACCUSATIONS THAT MY VIDEOS HAVE BROKEN A LAW.. AND THREAT TO REMOVAL OR OTHER PUNISHMENT.
THE LAW CAN NOT BE USED AGAINST A PETITIONING BODY.
ALL PROSECUTIONS ARE ILLEGAL!!!!!!!
IT IS NOT CRIME TO USE MATERIAL IN A PETITION AS EVIDENCE AND NOBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT MATERIAL ANOTHER PERSON'S CASE/CAUSE WILL CONTAIN AND USE.
DOES A CRIMINAL HAVE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT MATERIAL AND VIDEOS THE POLICE USE AGAINST THEM??
IN COURT POSSIBLY THEY CAN OBJECT. BUT THAT IS AT THE PROCEEDINGS.
YOUTUBE AND WARNER BROTHERS CANNOT OBJECT TO MATERIAL BEING USED IN A POLITICAL CASE/PETITION.
BECAUSE ITS DIFFERENT FROM CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO OBJECT AGAINST A PETITION THE LAW FORBIDS IT.
IN AMERICA LAW ALSO.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW TO ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PETITION FREELY.
LOOK. IF YOU ARE TAKING PEOPLES EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL DOWN YOU ARE ABRIDGING THAT RIGHT.
YOU ARE INTERVENING IN THE DELIVERY OF THE PETITION AND ITS ATTACHMENTS EVIDENCE..
YOUTUBE FACILITATES THE PUBLICATION OF VIDEO. SUCH VIDEOS ARE LIKED TO AND USED IN PETITIONING AND COMPLAINTS TO GOVERNMENT. EVEN IN POLICE CASES.
ITS NOT FOR YOUTUBE OR ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER TO DECIDE IF THEIR CONTENT CAN BE USED OR SHOULD BE USED. ITS NOT THEIR CAUSE FOR INTERVENTION.
THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS BEING PETITIONED IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY WITH THE RIGHT TO DECISION ON THE PETITIONING.
THIS IS THE LAW.
OTHERWISE YOUTUBE IS ATTEMPTING TO BE A GOVERNMENT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY YOUTUBE AND FACEBOOK BOTH HAVE MEGALOMANIA RECENTLY.
SEEM TO THING YOU ARE A COURT OF LAW, AND NOW BELIEVE YOU ARE A GOVERNMENT AND YOUR USERS DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS.
YOUR OBSESSION WITH POWER AND CONTROL HAS REACHED ASTRONOMICAL PROPORTIONS BECAUSE MAINLY OF MONEY. EXCESS MONEY AND YOUNG NEW MAVERICK LAWYERS WHO THINK THEY ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN NOT ONLY GOVERNMENTS BUT MORE POWERFUL THAN THE VOTERS WHO VOTE IN THE GOVERNMENT AND PETITION FOR NEW LAWS..
SO WHAT??? YOU WILL BAN ALL VIDEOS THAT PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO BAN YOUTUBE AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL??
AND YOU WILL REMOVE WARNER BROTHERS MUSIC FROM THOSE VIDEOS I SUPPOSE AS WELL, OR EVIDENCE THAT WARNER BROTHERS ARE MAKING EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM VIDEO CONTENT CLAIMS...
YET THEY NEGLECT TO BOTHER TO ENFORCE COPYRIGHT OF IMAGES THEY OWN ON OTHER WEBSITES.. WHEN THEY COULD EASILY USE REVERSE IMAGE SEARCHES? YET THEY "ALLOW IT"
SERIOUSLY MISUSING LEGAL POWERS I THINK... THEY ARE ALLOWING UNENFORCED USE OF IMAGERY ALL OVER THE INTERNET YET ONLY MAKE CLAIMS THROUGH YOUTUBE BECAUSE ITS CONVENIENT AND MAKES THEM MONEY.
SEEMS VERY BIASED TO ME.
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS HAVE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO USE ANY MATERIAL AND IMAGES IN CAMPAIGNS. BECAUSE THEY CAN NOT BE PROSECUTED THROUGH THE COURTS.
THAT IS THE LAW.
REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATS OR ANY OTHER PARTY CAN USE ANY IMAGERY OR VIDEO CONTENT IN A CAMPAIGN.
AND ANY PERSON PETITIONING THE GOVERNMENT CAN LIKEWISE USE ANY SUCH MEDIA OR MATERIAL.
IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER TO OBJECT OR TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO PROSECUTE. THEREFORE ILLEGAL TO THREATEN WITH PROSECUTION OR LEGAL ACTION.
IT IS A CRIME TO THEREFORE REMOVE ANY VIDEO OR CONTENT OR THREATEN TO DO SO..
AGAINST ANY VIDEO OR CHANNEL THAT IS CLAIMED FOR POLITICAL USE/PETITIONING.
YOUTUBE NEEDS TO CREATE SPECIAL VIDEO OR CHANNEL SETTINGS THEREFORE FOR POLITICAL CONTENT THAT HAS A RIGHT AND LAW OF PROTECTION FROM YOUTUBE POLICY AND COPYRIGHT AND OTHER COMPLAINTS.
PEOPLE CAN DECLARE THEIR VIDEOS OR CHANNEL FOR POLITICAL STATUS OR PETITIONING.
AND YOU HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION FOR THOSE USERS.
UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND UNDER THE RIGHT TO PETITION 1688 BILL OF RIGHTS.
PLEASE UPDATE YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AS THEY ARE WRONG. AND LACK INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND
ANS LIKELY ARE POLITICALLY OPPOSED ANYWAY TO SUCH STATUS SETTINGS.
THEREFORE IMMEDIATELY BIASED.
YOUTUBE AND WARNER HAVE NO RIGHT TO OBJECT AGAINST USE OF THEIR CHANNEL OR MATERIAL.
IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE SUBJECTS TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL PROSECUTIONS AND COMMITMENTS ARE ILLEGAL.
How the 1930 Road Traffic act, reveals a real legal acknowledgement and reference to significant and relevant "Rights" that do exist in other passed acts of statute law. And why and where these rights, authority applies to and in fact IS facilitated for and implemented into not just this act, but all other acts of law.
And that modern enactments do not need to mention this. They only do not reference or site these other rights and their relevance because it has not been in the interests of the current government to bother to mention them.
The style and respect of the 1930s act, does pay great respect and reference to these fundamental underlying rights. Giving a key insight and understanding of how ALL acts of law interest and are of consequence and effect.
No modern amendments can ommit, or effect the principles that are outlined in this act.
Because they refer to and acknowledge with respect..
General rights, principles and legal facts that apply irrespectively of the specific enactment itself.
They are free from the constraints of each enactments and clause.
Because the enactments and clauses are highlighting actually fundamental principles. Siting other acts that are all synonymous to the same legal principle and effect the same relevance.
This gives powers to persons who can use the authority given by other acts, that are orders passed by Parliament.. to have effect.
And these clearly can be used not only in this act of law, but any other act.
The fact that this act is an older act.. is not dependent on the newer road traffic acts.
What we find evidence of here, is that our general suspicions about "rights" particular the Right to Petition... Are completely acknowledged and confirmed by this act.
In every way, exactly as claimed through previous work on this right.
The faithfulness of this act.. in its explanation of other rights, other given authority through other acts.. that "any person" may use....
And in connection with those circumstances and facts by which special acts and powers are claimed and used..
Its clear in this 1930s Road Traffic act.. of King George...
That special acts and rights clearly DO apply to the use of vehicles on roads. The use of vehicles for special purposes by "any person" not only police officers.. But any person..
And that an act passed by Parliament.. such as the 1688 Bill of Rights, right to petition..
Would clearly, by the principles and understanding set out in the provisions and references of this act.. absolutely and without question.. apply to normal people, in the use of vehicles on roads. Including the speed of vehicles and and any other use, where special acts of law, protection and rights are being invoked
OK, I've got to do a video discussion on this!! I totally understand this, but haven't been feeling like doing the video yet...
I've got the notes and understanding correct..
Thinking I feel more like writing it all than talking about it. :/
One think that comes to mind... I'm starting to think this might have a lot more to do with The Prince Phillips meddling in the passing of legislation..
Because King George's government clearly have a great respect and admiration for Rights and special acts of law.. even in connection with the Road Traffic acts.
It's not something that's "legislated upon" though in this or even modern Road Traffic regulations acts..
Its about the "interpretation" and the references and acknowledgements that are sited in the act.
Fundamental principles and understanding of existing law and how it interacts with not just this act, but other acts and special acts..
Its how its written in respect of those other fundamental principles...
Which is "ignored" and failed to be "sited" in the modern acts.
This 1930s act, serves to confirm all my previous interpretation and theories and study findings of how these rights apply and interact with the road traffic acts.
Therefore the Crown prosecution service and courts need to study and acknowledge these act's as evidence that in fact..
They have no power to make an order or hear a case, when a special act of law or right is being invoked.
And such rights as the Right to petition. Clearly DO apply to road traffic acts.
When protection of parties is being used through special acts of law and powers, given to us by order and enactments of Parliament.
Post by Administrator on Feb 26, 2021 21:49:22 GMT
There is now confirmation of compatibility between the Road Traffic acts and Bill of Rights "Right to petition" claim..
By merit of it being a special act of law /order by Parliament. Of protection from liability and risks involved in the use of motor vehicles on roads.. in circumstances and facts pertaining to the pursuit of meeting the objective of the petitioning.
Authority given to the person who has the legal right to be protected from risks and liability arising out of the pursuit of the cause.
Also we find that this Authority is conferred on any person.
Administrator: EXTINCTION REBELLION ON LIES AND CORRUPTION IN THE PRESS youtu.be/p1xeZ6gYp1k special relationships between the local tabloids and Council/Police control what the public see and hear in the press.
Jun 12, 2021 6:24:18 GMT
Administrator: With extremely high levels of complaints against local authorities and police, the percentage of the public who elect these authorities is very low. Outlining that we are being governed and controlled by a minority percentage of people, who run the news
Jun 12, 2021 6:28:26 GMT