“It is my understanding from Halsbury’s Laws of England that the Oath does not authorize any Judge or Magistrate in the Common Law Jurisdiction of England and Wales to adjudicate any Hearing in which the matter is to be decided in any way other than by a Jury. Furthermore, in the Hearing in question held at the Magistrates Court in TOWN on DATE there was no Injured Party, no corpus delecti, and no Defendant. Therefore the Common Law Oath under which the Judge/Magistrate claimed authority is unlawful and constitutes an offence contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. The fact that the Judge/Magistrate sat is considered to be prima facie evidence of the offence. It is my understanding from reading Halsbury’s Laws of England that no MAGISTRATES or COUNTY COURT should exist, and when someone is summoned it is an ADMINISTRATIVE meeting without ANY lawful existence. If this has transpired it is in breach of the Fraud Act 2006 (see 4, 5 and 6 below) as the Judge/Magistrate, Clerk and Prosecutor step outside their lawful remit, and become personally liable. It is my understanding that demanding monies by false representation is in breach of the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2 It is my understanding that demanding monies without providing full disclosure is in breach of The Fraud Act 2006, Section 3 It is my understanding that demanding monies without providing evidence of authority or jurisdiction is in breach of The Fraud Act 2006, Section 4 It is my understanding that Halsbury’s on Administrative Law 20-11: “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.” It is my understanding that according to Observance of due Process of Law 1368 section 3: “None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law. At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and sometime caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law: It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that no Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land: And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error.”
Posted on: Sun, 18 May 2014 07:58:49 +0000