important re avoiding being unlawfully arrested

This topic contains 9 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by blackthorn . blackthorn . 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14112
    J P of the family G
    J P of the family G
    Participant

    hi all i was unlawfully arrested by the met police on 10th of jan 2019 because after 30 mins of refusing to surrender to there jurisdiction of acts and statues they tricked me into logging into the clc and as soon as they saw my name pop up they arrested me .. please all note change your account to your initials only as they need a name to arrest you and process into there system . which is what caught me out ..
    below im putting the you tube link of my unlawful arrest do please go see how to handle the fools that have no idea about the law and do not abide by there oaths of office and are instead acting in comence (working for profit as government employees )

    #14358
    blackthorn .
    blackthorn .
    Participant

    Well done for standing your ground and explaining the error their ways to these uneducated constables, who don’t understand what their jobs are. Ignorance of the LAW is no excuse. There appear to be several issues with some of the things that these constables said. For example afaik they are perfectly able to present a producer. Also there are clear definitions relating to words such as Motorised Vehicle and Driver etc.

    Presumably you have reclaimed the name and their fore they have no jurisdiction! The only have power over your paper birth certificate which belongs to the Crown as clearly stated at the bottom of the certificate. Furthermore it clearly states that the birth certificate may not be used for identification purposes! There for it can not be applied to you as it’s not you nor is it you. Identifying as the birth certificate would be fraud, and them identifying you as the BC name under threat of arrest is an act of coercion which is a crime in both instances. They cause you harm and stress while placing you under duress which is a crime under common law.

    Are you in the S. London area? If so there is a small group of us who meet from time to time in and around Essex and you would be welcome to join us.

    I think the biggest mistake you made was not having your documentation with you.

    Imho we should carry a copy of our CLC Birth Certificate and if in a private transporter device the CLC registration document. I wouldn’t recommend carrying the reclaimed name document nor the CLC ID card as both have the potential to leave people in the same situation as you found yourself in, due to disclosing the NAME which they promptly abused and exploited!

    If you’re standing on Article 61 carrying that document may also be worth while, supported with evidence of treason which can be used to report the crime to the constables attending. Once they have been informed of treason they are obliged to act upon that information in accordance with common law (which they have sworn an oath to uphold!).

    If the old forum content hadn’t been discarded you would have had access to some useful information about the lack of jurisdiction with respect to statutes, acts and administrative courts. There was also some information regarding the police.

    We have no government in a position to legislate any acts or statutes, nor do we have access to lawful courts. Both bodies are actively engaged in acts of treason against the good people of our country!

    Administrative Courts Unlawful: Halsbury’s Law

    Halsbury’s Law states administrative courts unlawful.

    The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation.
    The collection of revenue by such means is extortion, and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times. We find for example, that in the council tax regulations, the billing authority, the prosecuting authority and the enforcement authority are all vested in the same body. The same bodies even purport to issue their own legal documents, by tacit agreement with the Courts. In our system of Common Law, the rule of law demands that we have a separation of powers.

    Today, the powers are not separated. The executive is not a distinct, free-standing leg of the tripod. The executive now emerges directly from within the elected Chamber of the legislature where previously it emanated directly from the Monarch. That leads to constitutional confusion – because the executive has seized and misuses Parliament’s democratic credentials for its own, destructive purposes.

    Fortunately, we have something to which we can turn to preserve our ancient laws and freedoms. We have the Oath that Her Majesty The Queen took at her coronation by which she is solemnly bound and from which no one in England, Wales and Scotland has released her. At Her Coronation the Queen swore to govern us, “according to [our] respective laws and customs”.

    Certainly, among our reputed “customs”, is precisely that invaluable and widely admired tripartite division of the powers. The judiciary is part and parcel of our customary system of internal sovereignty—“the Queen in Parliament”. It is one of the three separate but symbiotic powers, and it is a capricious and self-serving contention that it should not have the power to preserve the authority of the legislature over the executive.

    It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England. This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.”

    08-10 – 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250.
    Halsbury’s Laws of England/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (VOLUME 1(1) (2001 REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION/(1) SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE SUBJECT/1. Scope.
    1. INTRODUCTION
    (1) SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE SUBJECT
    1. Scope.
    For the purposes of this work, administrative law1 is understood to mean the law relating to the discharge of functions of a public nature in government and administration. It includes the law relating to functions of public authorities and officers and of tribunals, judicial review of the exercise of those functions, the civil liability and legal protection of those purporting to exercise them and aspects of the means whereby extra-judicial redress may be obtainable at the instance of persons aggrieved2.

    1 For at least half a century after the publication of Dicey’s Law of the Constitution (1st Edn) (1885), the term ‘administrative law’ was identified with droit administrativef, a separate body of rules relating to administrative authorities and officials, applied in special administrative courts. As thus defined, administrative law did not exist in England: see Dicey’s Law of the Constitution (10th Edn) 330. See also Re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2) [1965] Ch 1210 at 1261, [1964] 3 All ER 354 at 372, CA, per Salmon LJ; Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 at 72, [1963] 2 All ER 66 at 76, HL, per Lord Reid (‘We do not have a developed system of administrative law–perhaps because until fairly recently we did not need it’).

    Ridge v Baldwin supra, however, and a number of decisions which followed it, marked a significant change in judicial attitudes towards judicial control of administrative action. See Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 at 382, [1980] 2 All ER 634 at 638, HL, per Lord Diplock (‘[The case of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, [1969] 1 All ER 208, HL] is a legal landmark; it has made possible the rapid development in England of a rational and comprehensive system of administrative law on the foundation of the concept of ultra vires’); Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 at 189, [1971] 1 All ER 1148 at 1153, CA, per Lord Denning MR (‘… there have been important developments in the last 22 years which have transformed the situation. It may truly now be said that we have a developed system of administrative law’); IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 at 641, [1981] 2 All ER 93 at 104, HL, per Lord Diplock (‘… [the] comprehensive system of administrative law [which] I regard as having been the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime’); O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 at 279, [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at 1129, HL, per Lord Diplock; Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808 at 816, [1984] 3 All ER 201 at 207, PC (‘The extension of judicial control of the administrative process … over the last 30 years … has already gone a long way towards providing a system of administrative law as comprehensive in its content as the droit administratif of countries of the Civil Law, albeit differing in procedural approach, [and] it is a development [which] is still continuing. It has not yet become static either in New Zealand or in England’); R v Lancashire County Council, ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941 at 945, 136 NLJ Rep 562, CA, per Sir John Donaldson MR (‘Notwithstanding that the courts have for centuries exercised a limited supervisory jurisdiction by means of the prerogative writs, the wider remedy of judicial review and the evolution of what is, in effect, a specialist administrative or public law court is a post-war development. This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration’).

    Other Sources:

    #14396
    steven: jones
    steven: jones
    Participant

    Hi IP,

    Interesting turn of events. very thought-provoking re not putting your full name on here. Much to consider…

    Will have to think about this and see if there is any way – hindsight being the wonderful thing that we all know it is! – that things could have been said or done differently to prevent the arrest. Which means I’ll have to watch your video in more detail, as I have skipped through it fairly quickly, I must admit.

    Assuming you will be sent notice to appear at a magistrates’ court, my first suggestion would immediately be to challenge the jurisdiction of said court. I will confer with friends about this over the next few days and then, I hope, come back on here and suggest a strategy which you may or may not wish to follow; your decision, ultimately. Good luck in the meantime.

    S.

    PS I would try and avoid actually being in court if possible. It is so-ooo easy to be inadvertently railroaded! I know…

    #14805

    Good advice about the name, just changed mine.

    #16132
    J P of the family G
    J P of the family G
    Participant

    omg thank you so much im in uxbridge mags court on the 12th of feb 2019. and although ive learned and registered on clc im still quite a novice at this . im in uxbridge cowley ub83sq they’ve taken my truck and sent me 2 threatening letters about paying to get it back which i have managed to de4lay by quoting im innocent until proven guilty. 01895435469 is my home number . i would welcome advise please and surport at court if anyones free as im nervous that my knowledge and rights will be ignored yet again . many regards j p g .

    #16134
    J P of the family G
    J P of the family G
    Participant

    thank you for your comment support is greatly needed

    #16135
    J P of the family G
    J P of the family G
    Participant

    im happy to help where i can . good luck

    #16463
    blackthorn .
    blackthorn .
    Participant

    There is no court it’s an ‘Administrative court’ and has no jurisdiction over the living man period! You need to establish the jurisdiction of the court by asking the court clerk if the court is an Administrative Court or a constitutional court de jure i.e. is there a jury present and will the jury be informed of their power of annulment and free from direction from the judge (lose sense of the term as there will be no legitimate judge present).

    If you intend to appear make sure that you only make a special appearance…look up what that means so you understand exactly what position that puts you in. Make sure you inform them that you are happy to accept their invitation to attend the court provided you can make a special appearance, and get that in writing. If there is any doubt about the validity of making a special appearance look at Tony Blair’s special appearance at the Iraq war enquiry. There are other examples.

    Also ask them to confirm what language the summons is written in and what styles guide is used for the creation of the document/s? Again get that in writing prior to attending the a court. The likely hood is that the document doesn’t conform to written English nor will it conform to a recognised styles manual. In which case the document is void! You will struggle to assert that on the day unless you understand grammar and gloss/glossa. Search Ytube for ROMLEY STEWART as he gives a good explanation or what glossa is and what it means within a legal document.

    Also read my earlier post in this thread which provides evidence that administrative courts are inferior and can only deal with acts which are not law unless you consent to abide by their rules. You have clearly demonstrated that you do not consent, and you have pro actively made your intentions clear by registering with the CLC.

    If you do go to the court make sure you have your CLC court birth certificate and the birth certificate that they are attempting to create joinder with. Ask them if they are attempting to coheres you into identifying as the owner of the birth certificate? It clearly states on the birth certificate that it may not be used as identification, and that it is Crown copyright. You are the Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust and are happy that the judge is acting as a trustee.

    As your car is registered with the CLC and you are the owner of the property they have no jurisdiction to steal your property! If they challenge your ownership of your property ask them to establish who the owner is? The DVLA will not state who the owner is. You were also travelling in private capacity and are not subject to road traffic acts or statutes.

    Your surname isn’t your name! If you look at any of the forms it will state something like NAME: ___________________ SECOND NAME _____________________ which makes it pretty obvious that the two things are entirely separate. Again ROMLEY STEWART covers the name issue in detail.

    Ask them what version of the Bible including the revision which is used in the court. It should be some revision of the King James Bible. Go to Clint Richardson’s website http://www.strawmanstory.info/ and download the PDF of his book ‘Strawman’ you can search it for taking oaths and fancy titles and names. Mr, Mrs and Miss are titles that the State attaches to the name on the BC. You can’t swear an oath on the Bible as that contradicts the teachings of the bible. The Bible (creators/gods Law) has authority above the court, and as such the courts are subservient to the Laws of the Bible. If there is any doubt consider the question why is the Bible is present in every court?

    If you are supporting the Barron’s Magna Carta 1215 Article 61 petition, you have lawful excuse to hinder the Queen and by extension the State, provided you do no harm to the Queen or her heirs. The judge has sworn an oath to the Queen, and the Queen is guilty of treason, so by extension the judge is participating in acts of treason if the judge fails to recognise our constitution and the invocation of Article 61. We are currently living in a lawless state and no State run court has any standing over the sovereign people of Great Britain under English Law.

    From what I remember of your encounter with the Police Constables in your video they failed to be honest in their dealings with you on several occasions. They were also acting beyond their authority as Constables as no Laws had been broken only Statutes and Acts. Iirc you made those points to them and they chose to ignore your statements. I doubt any of the Constables attending are legally competent to make legal determinations especially with respect to our constitution and common law. You could write an affidavit or truth clarifying your claims and common law standing and ask the constable attending to provide an affidavit to counter your claims.

    The constables are operating as agents of a registered corporation as are the courts, as such they have no lawful jurisdiction over you in the same way Tesco’s has no authority over you. No contract exists between you and the State and if they claim there is ask them to provide proof of their claim along with evidence that you were provided with full disclosure.

    Do not agree that you understand any of their claims or statements as the simple fact is you do not understand them because they aren’t using common English or recognised grammar rules and styles. Nether deny or affirm anything just ask questions. Do not sign anything without writing ‘under duress’ and then place an autograph over the words under duress.

    A court summons is an invitation so you’re free to decline their invitation. You have more than enough grounds to decline as they can’t establish jurisdiction nor authority over you unless you consent to their demands.

    If you attend get their early and make sure that the clerk is notified that the Sates issued Birth Certificate is present and attending court, and that you are making a special appearance in order to ensure the certificate attend the court so that the trustees may deal with the matter. Your CLC birth certificate is proof of who you are and the authority that you recognise. You could state that you are happy for the court to pass the case to the jurisdiction of the common law court, so that the matter maybe dealt with lawfully, under our constitution and the law of England/Great Britain.

    That’s a hodgepodge of different stances you could take, but unfortunately you are dealing with a criminal corporate enterprise, which doesn’t abide by our constitution or the rule of law, so there is no justice to be had in their criminal court system.

    One last thought you could give your son power of attorney and he could take the state Birth Certificate into the court. He could then notify the court clerk that the BC is present and will be attending the court. When they call the name in the court your son could wave the BC/document at the judge to confirm that it’s present, and willing to answer any questions the court is able to extract from it. Not sure how well that would go down though?

    Don’t take anything I have stated as legal advice! You need to do your own due diligence and understand the processes and concepts mentioned above. You also need to be able to express those concepts and ideally support the claims with evidence.

    I hope everything goes well for you whatever approach you decide to take. We all need to be taking the stand you are taking if we want our country back.

    #21897
    D H
    David Ashton Hughes
    Participant

    Hi Blackthorn
    As you mentioned lawful rebellion article 61. How do I fill in the deed on here. As it asks for a Barron? and to up load a document of some sort? Any help would be appreciated.

    #22290
    blackthorn .
    blackthorn .
    Participant

    Hi David,

    You don’t actually need to present your oath to a Barron, the object is to demonstrate your intent to support them and the lawful invocation of A61. It’s becoming more difficult to find a Barron who is accepting oaths, as many have died or changed address etc.

    What you can do is complete your oath and get three good men to witness your oath. That is a clear sign of your intention. You could then make a copy and seal it in an envelope which you can send recorded delivery to yourself. Once you receive it don’t open it and keep it somewhere safe in case you need it as proof in the future. Make sure you also store the original document safely and don’t use that one recorded process!

    I’m not sure if it’s possible to complete the A61 deed without the name of a Barron, which is a bit of a problem given the difficulty actually completing that task successfully. You could ask the CLC admins of the Deed to add a new field to the form something to the effect of ‘witnessed oath and intent’ (not sure if they will be able to do that though?).

    There are still three or so Barron’s who are accepting afaik, but I don’t recall their names or address details. You may find someone with that information on the Facebook group ‘Practical Lawful Dissent’. I’m busy over the next couple of days and don’t have my oath to hand. I will try and dig it out and provide you with the details I used to lodge my oath with the Barron’s. I can tell you the peers name which is ‘David Manners – 11th Duke of Rutland’ that maybe enough for you to find an address.

    Iirc you don’t actually have to upload a copy of the documents as part of the Deed process. By completing the Deed entries you are doing so under penalty of perjury and full liability. So making a claim that is untrue renders you liable at common law!

    This Lawful Rebellion declaration has been recorded for preservation, with the Common Law Court. The information contained within it is based on first-hand knowledge and has been provided by the named individual. This individual has submitted this information under penalty of perjury and full liability.

    Obviously lodging your pledge on the CLC deed system is the way to go, as it creates a public record of your intention, and you can also obtain an extract to use as evidence of your intent.

    Hope that helps.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.