FIRST RED CAR SEIZED

[1.618]

Could you not argue that you are acting under the authority of Lord Ashbourne as it was he who invoked the lawful rebellion and you are just doing your duty, and that if the courts fail to recognise this they are are commiting treason?

[legaleagle]

HVYMTL Just to stick my oar in when you say you want to lose in magistrates court so you can appeal to crown court, are you aware that your appeal will only be heard by a judge (most likely sitting with two magistrates) and there will be no jury?

[Star-Child]

Can he not exercise his common law right to have a trial by members of his peers, as protected for him Under human rights act section 11 ?

[frogmanbrabs]

Have a read of this and see if it can be of any use to you

Challenge of Jurisdiction.doc

.

[legaleagle]

It is the classification of the offence that decides where it is heard.

These are
Summary Offences (things like parking offences and most traffic law) which are always heard in magistrates court.
Indictable Offences (murder for example) which can only be heard in a crown court.
Either way Offences (assault for example) which can be tried in either court and where the defendant has the right to demand trial by jury.

You will never be tried in front of a jury for a summary only offence. You will also never have a jury at an appeal, unless it is a re-trial of a either way or indictable offence.

I hope this clears things up.

frogmanbrabs thanks for the interesting link. It was very interesting reading.

[Star-Child]

The state may ' claim ' they are summary offences , but that still does not give them lawful excuse to prevent a human from exercising his common law right to have the matter decided by a jury of their peers. If they deny anyone their common law right to trial by jury, in that process they are violating a human beings right, under Human rights act.


So if one writes to the Prosecutor, and states that ' subject to Human Rights Act 1998, sec 11. Safeguard for existing human rights. . A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—
(a)any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom' , I would like to exercise my common law right , as protected for me under human rights legislation , to have a trial by jury, in order to reach a decision in these criminal allegations.


Then let the prosecutor , or court, come back with a response. If they violate human rights, that's about 4 grand ?

Common Law rights are protected for ' Human Beings '. What a CORPORATION , or it's officers , employee's, may wish , is irrelevant .


We have common law rights, statutory rights, international rights. The choice of defence at law is for the individual to choose, not the state to pigeon hole sheep, happily stamping their forms.

So why not send an affidavit off to the prosecutor at the same time. You gonna try and claim a court doesn't do affidavits in these matters because it's summary offences ?

[legaleagle]

Well first of all section 11 of the human rights act prevents any part of the human rights act stopping you enjoying freedoms conferred by law.
Secondly the classification of offences I have mentioned is done by parliament when they classify the offence.

And as parliament is the highest form of law maker in the country, yes if you try and get a trial by jury for offences judged to be summary only you will be told no.

You can of course disagree with this, and look on it as a way of the government unlawfully keeping sheepies in check.

And as for 4 grand if they don't give you a trial by jury, who do you think is going to award this amount to you? the very judiciary who have just told you you can't have the trial by jury?

[frogmanbrabs]

Common Law reigns above all others. You never commented any further on the post about Challenge of Jurisdiction Legaleagle is there any reason for that?

[legaleagle]

If you mean your post on this thread about challenging the fact the queen is the true queen it's because I have answered the same point several times and seem to upset people when I do. My view on it though is that as the queen is a figurehead with no real political authority, it does not matter who or what does her job (all my view of course). I found it an interesting piece but it is pretty irrelevant in actually being useful in relation to modern law or pretty much anything else. The queen (in my opinion) is a throw back to our history, kept around for romantic who love to live in the past and tourists. The only thing she and her family do in the real world is make PR trips to foreign countries and bring in tourists.

If you are talking about a different thread then if you let me know which one it is I will try and answer it.

As to common law being supreme, the answer is yes and no. Yes because through judicial precedent lower courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts (common law) but no in the fact that parliament are the highest form of law and can make any law they see fit. These laws then replace the previous law. There is no law higher then parliament (unless you are religious of course ).

[frogmanbrabs]

So when you are summonsed to court, who is bringing the case against you? Isn't it the Crown Prosecution Service? and the case is labelled Regina (The Queen) v YOU.