Ammunition for Freemen-on-the-Land
Update: April, 2011
Update: October, 2011
Archbold: Criminal Pleading and Evidence is the massive tome 'they' expect to use in Court (along with Stone's Justice's Manual).
Within Archbold we can see ammunition that can be used in Court, because it also covers Civil Matters, to some extent.
One of these matters covered is "Contempt of Court". I now quote a few selected passages from the section dealing with "OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE - E. CONTEMPT AT COMMON LAW.
(I don't quote these in the order in which they can be read in Archbold. I quote them in the order in which they make most sense to you & I. But they are all out of that section).
Sir John Donaldson M.R. (Master of the Rolls?): "Mens rea in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law and had developed on a case by case basis".
"Wholly the creature of the common law"? Wow!
In Dean v. Dean  F.L.R. 517, C.A. (Civ. Div.), the court said that: "Contempt of court, whether civil or criminal, is a common law misdemeanor and it had long been recognised that proceedings for contempt were criminal or quasi-criminal in nature and that the case against the alleged contemnor must be proved to the standard of criminal proof namely, beyond reasonable doubt"
A misdemeanor? Not even a felony? And had to be proved to criminal standards? Wow!
Until Att-Gen v. Newspaper Publishing plc and others  Ch. 333, C.A. (Civ. Div.), there was widespread acceptance of the classification of contempts as being either civil or criminal. Civil contempt consisted of disobedience to an order of the court in circumstances where the disobedience is principally a matter that affects the parties to the case. Sir John Donaldson (again) later pointed out that the classification was not really relevant, since contempts have to be proved to criminal standards anyway.
Now, get this.
First of all we have Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. , ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"
"They should be able to rely on freedom from bias"? "They should be able to rely on no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court"? Errr... Judges, Magistrates, Clerks, Ushers, Security Men? Well, they are 'functions of the court'. "Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirement is contempt of court"?
Here's something else:
Buckley J. held that "No contempt had been committed because the case was to be tried by a Judge sitting alone, who would be unaffected"
And, lastly (for now):
At common law, a contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice: Att-Gen v. Butterworth Islands, re a special reference from  A.C 138. There is no impediment to a court making a finding of contempt, when it is appropriate to do so, not against the Crown directly but against a government department or a minister of the Crown in his official capacity: M. v. Home Office and another  3 All E.R. 537, H.L
If you read all those quotations again ... which by the way, you can use in Court ... since you will be quoting from Archbold ... then the conclusions you can draw are:
1. Only Judges, Magistrates and Clerks of the Courts can be held as having been in Contempt of Court if they don't act STRICTLY under their Oaths of Office. Thus, when demanding them to repeat their Oath - and they say that is irrelevant - you can say "It is far from irrelevant, according to what Lord Diplock said, which is quoted in Archbold. Would you like a copy of what he said?". The point is that, IN LAW, mens rea is a crucial factor, i.e. INTENT. When refusing to give your Name, etc. what is your INTENT? The answer is to refuse the deception of acquiescing to Admiralty Law, by virtue of being a Land-dweller and only subject to the Law-of-the-Land. Whereas their INTENT is to deceive you into acquiescing to the Laws-of-Waters (whether they realise it [Judges] or not [Magistrates]!). YOU are attempting to bring the entire Court back to honourable, true, real 'justice' ... whereas they are trying to pervert that course.
2. You can't be in Contempt of a Court where the Judge is sitting alone ... because s/he is unaffected. You can be in contempt of the other Party ... but NOT of the Judge or the Court. (Fundamentally this saying that a Judge's shoulders should be sufficiently broad as to brush off even direct insults! Assuming, of course, they acted diligently and with integrity, i.e. under their Oaths, etc). Without any shadow of a doubt a Local Council (for example) will be in contempt of you ... otherwise they would not have summonsed you.
3. And note: "There is no impediment to a court making a finding of contempt, when it is appropriate to do so, not against the Crown directly but against a government department or a minister of the Crown in his official capacity". This must (in their little world) include Local Councils.
Provided here for In-depth Study
Printable Crib Sheet When returning (to the Court Manager) an Order as UNLAWFUL - because the Judge/Magistrates did not confirm they were acting under their Oath of Office at the time of making the Order - print out this crib sheet and enclose it with the returned Order and Covering Letter. (See a Slide on the Powerpoint Presentation for a specimen of what to write as the Covering Letter)
Veronica (28th January, 2011)
Update, April 2011
If we go back to what Lord Diplock says, in 1974: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction ..." - and we note "constitutionally established" - we can ask ourselves: "What IS a constitutionally established Court?". The only possible answer is: "One defined by the Constitution". So the question then moves to: "What IS the Constitution?"
Halsbury's Laws of England purport to be the overall authority on 'legal' (Note: Not 'law', because it is choc full of references to Statutes ... it is as badly-named as one would expect from such an impressive tome ... here's why). Under "STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts", we see:
Particular Types of Act
CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS
The British Constitution
is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most countries, the
United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of
its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are
nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting
forth the state's constitutional principles1.
Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a
The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the
nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the
rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be
regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear
See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act
of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.
See eg the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947;
the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons
Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme
Court Act 1981.
See para 1299 text and
note 5 post.
note 2--Supreme Court Act 1981 now cited as Senior Courts Act 1981: Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Sch 11 para 1 (in force on 1 October 2009: SI 2009/1604).
This (glibly) says that the Constitution derives from the Magna Carta 1215 - and also the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.- as well as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Now, since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament - nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.
The only way anything could gain Constitutional legitimacy is if The People decided it was to be that way (by overwhelming majority, based on the best-known facts). The circumstances surrounding the Magna Carta 1215 were about as close as one could come - bearing in mind the communications available at the time - to a People's Referendum. What subsequent Referendum (of Magna Carta 1215-size) gave Constitutional legitimacy to any 'experiment in Human Relations' known as a Parliament? The Civil Wars? The conflict there was, basically, Parliament .vs. Monarch ... i.e. One falsehood .vs. Another falsehood ... One 'power-grabbed' Illegitimacy .vs. Another 'power-grabbed' Illegitimacy.
In other words: 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY ... and no legitimacy for making THEMSELVES Constitutional ... let alone any subsequent ones. Indeed even the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715 cannot claim any Constitutional legitimacy. Possibly the Declaration of Rights could make a Constitutional legitimacy claim (but very tenuous, since it was An Illegitimacy inviting A Substitute Monarch to the English throne. It all rather depends on whether or not one believes in the "Divine Right of Kings" ... which this Author does not. Unfortunately the British do LOVE their Monarch ... well ... except those who've had their heads chopped off, that is).
('Parliament' has simply self-aggrandised itself. When were The People of England asked if it was Constitutionally-acceptable to create any kind of Court de Facto? When did The People agree another TREATY - such that was OK to create a Parliament? It's all been plucked out of multiple backsides. And the Magna Carta 1215 specifically prohibits ANY of this arse-plucking)
Thus we are clearly left with the Magna Carta 1215 (and possibly the Declaration of Rights) defining the Constitution. And the only type of Court thus defined is ONE WITH A JURY. In other words: A Court of The Common Law.
It is doubtful that Lord Diplock meant to exclude all other types of Courts, but he did when he used the words "constitutionally established".
Added to this we have John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls (mine's a cheese & onion!) saying: "Mens rea in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law ...", which also points us fairly & squarely back to Common Law Courts with a Jury (for resolving Contempts of Court).
In summary, ALL Courts de Facto are UNconstitiutional, as are ALL Acts of Parliament (most of which TRY to support such Courts ... FROM AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!)
And applying UNconstitiutional demands - with menaces - is defined as TREASON.
Treason against The People of England (and hence the United Kingdom as a whole - assuming Wales, Scotland and Ulster would be happy to accept the Magna Carta 1215 ... they would be daft if they did not).
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WHETHER A JUDGE IS ACTING UNDER HIS OATH OR NOT - IF HE IS TRYING TO RUN A COURT DE FACTO (ONE WITHOUT A JURY OF 12) - THEN HE IS COMMITTING TREASON.
Only a Judge presiding over a Common Law Court is acting Constitutionally.
And that's where all the corruption lies.
Veronica (21st April, 2011)
Update, October 2011
Statement of the Offence of Administering an Unlawful Oath
Veronica, 26th October 2011
IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH "Contempt of Court"
The Judge will often say (something like) "You are are in Contempt of Court! Take him/her down!".
But hold on! The Judge is "making a claim". MERELY "making a claim"! "Making a claim" about a Common Law misdemeanour. A misdemeanour that must be assessed to criminal standards ("beyond reasonable doubt"), under the Common Law.
This requires a Trial, in a Common Law Court (in front of a Jury) before it becomes anyone's "guilty" verdict (and thus may warrant a prison sentence)!
It requires 'arraignment', i.e. FORMAL notification of the Charge, and a plea of "guilty" or "not guilty" entered into a Court Record before that Trial can take place.
AND THE JUDGE - MAKING THE COMPLAINT - CANNOT BE THE JUDGE AT THAT TRIAL ... because s/he would be "a Judge in their own cause" i.e. "Judge, Jury and Executioner all rolled into one ... in a sub-Trial within a Trial".
So ... instead of feeling "guilty" for one's outburst or conduct, or whatever - and letting oneself be led down the stairs into a Court Cell - it might be a good idea to point all that out.
The Judge is entitled to make the claim. The Judge can have you evicted from the Courtroom. BUT THAT'S HIS OR HER LIMIT in the matter. (It's up to a future Court - AND A DIFFERENT JUDGE - AND A JURY - to decide whether or not the original Judge's claim can be substantiated)
DON'T LET THEM BROWBEAT YOU!
Sure ... you may have shouted something offensive. DON'T FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT! YOU MAY HAVE HAD "LAWFUL EXCUSE" ... in which case you are NOT GUILTY of any offence. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN DEMAND A SEPARATE TRIAL.
Veronica, 28th October 2011