Bleeding good point there FB - I shall add that where needs b.

Hi all, and sorry to have replied so late to this thread. What with illness, a 'holiday' (read: a few days off work) for the first time in 5 years, various births, weddings and birthdays, visits to relations and the like, I've had little time to scratch my own backside of late

Anyway, I served the notice at the court, which will be: "given to the prosecution on the day, and they'll refer to that" - so said the woman at the court. She did have to go and enquire about what I was actually presenting them with, but came back about ten minutes later after investigating.

So, on the 26th, I'll take copies of everything - all correspondence, notices, etc, along with my B/C (should it be needed), and after reading some peoples' experiences in court (being arrested, houses searched etc), I will be taking the computer to a safe location on the morning of the hearing, along with anything important like paperwork, etc. so IF for any reason my house is searched, they won't have anything useful to go on

Having a head full of steam and feeling generally tired, I'll leave it at that tonight. I'll post up my NOTICE OF STANDING, INTENT & RESERVATION OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS tomorrow - hopefully. I've not yet finished it. Had a blank mind most of this week, but I'll be ready to complete it tomorrow.

Before I go, thank you to everyone for their kind words of encouragement and suggestions. They are much appreciated.

Just out of interest, and I don;t know if this has been covered before, or if it's any way relevant, but I came upon something to do with contempt of court:

"All courts and some tribunals are protected by the law of contempt, but at common law, only courts of record have an inherent power to punish for contempt and their powers of punishment vary dependant upon their status as 'superior' or 'inferior' courts."

A quote from the site: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/

Seems to me, the way I understand things, is that since most courts, if not all courts, are 'de facto' (not courts of record/de jure), then they are limited in their ability to use the 'contempt of court' tactic and any attendant 'punishments' for said contempt... or am I just over-tired and seeing something that isn't really there?

Anyway, thank you all again, and I'll be back refreshed at some stage tomorrow...

SoulWave // Mark.

consumerpada wrote:Good work !!

-- I'm not sure about "personal jurisdiction" though, I may be being a bit para' but it just sounds a bit wrong to say it like that OR you may have stumbled upon a great way to put it ---

Anyway you know what you mean, so any funny questions on the point I'm sure you'll deal it out and hold to your definition

very inspirational...

PS: just before I really do go to bed (lol)... a bit of info on personal jurisdiction: (there are various types).

"Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's power over a particular defendant (in personam jurisdiction) or an item of property (in rem jurisdiction). If a court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant or property, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights over the property. Personal jurisdiction is to be distinguished from subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning a certain subject matter, or territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment concerning events that occurred within a territory. Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction may be waived, even unintentionally, by a defendant. Personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and proper notice to the defendant are the most fundamental constitutional prerequisites for a valid judgment."

The way I read that is that if I do not give the court 'personal jurisdiction', then they cannot bind me, give me any 'order', or adjudicate in the matter, hence the inclusion of 'personal jurisdiction' in my notice.

SoulWave // Mark.

excellent!!

According to the Antiterrorist, amongst others, you deal with the contempt of court issue like this:

You: Would that be criminal or civil contempt?

His holiness: Erm...criminal...

You: So where is the injured party? Witnesses? Who here has a claim against me?

Gobshite: Sorry, erm...Civil...

You: Well that would require my consent, would it not? I won't consent to that...


Not had to try that one myself as yet, so I can't say whether it's a silver bullet, but it'll throw him at least..!

All the best man, here's the link if you haven't seen these already...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B442DFC670E730B6

Pax juris


EDIT: Get his oath on the record!!!! Good luck mate