well I'm back !!!!!!

[BaldBeardyDude]

With all due respect to everybody concerned, irrespective of the reservation of our inalienable rights, it is the rights that we exercise in and out of court that settle and close every matter, and in a kangaroo-style, quasi-miltary, commercial tribunal (more commonly known as the Magistrates Court), the only rights that can be exercised are those of the creditor (the claimant), the debtor (the defendent), the Crown (the Clerk to the Justices), the officers of the court (the paid liars and henchmen), its administrators, witnesses and judges (mainly retired military and freemasons).

For the purposes of its aggressive business, in which justice never figures, Magistrates can ONLY deal with PERSONS, and the moment your STRAWMAN is served with a summons to appear in court, the capitalised name is presumed to be guilty as charged, with the Authorised Representative holding the liability. This is because, under admiralty law, an officer of the court is INCAPABLE of telling a lie!!! Therefore, we are in contempt or dishonour every time we do not offer some form of acceptance of the charges against our STRAWMAN, the renouncing of which does not settle and close any matter, except the sacrifice of our purpose-built vessel for the choppy waters of maritime.

Peace

Absolutely. There can be no standing for a man or woman in court. They deal in fictions ONLY. I have been reading this feverishly today, to try to find something to help, but these private courts are not capable of dealing with humans, by their very nature. Sorry. I tried, both.

Baldy

There's more on this - much more at this site.

[Veronica]

Therefore, we are in contempt or dishonour every time we do not offer some form of acceptance of the charges against our STRAWMAN, the renouncing of which does not settle and close any matter, except the sacrifice of our purpose-built vessel for the choppy waters of maritime

Means what?

I'm perfectly happy to be in contempt of them ... provided you make that "utter contempt".

"Dishonour" is a relative term ... their dishonour can easily be my HONOUR, therefore. (Especially if I say so)

"The renouncing of which does not close or settle any matter ... "... well that's tough titty on them innit?

"... except the sacrifice of our purpose-built vessel for the choppy waters of maritime" ... purpose-built by whom? I don't care if their ship sinks.

[IamallthatIam]

And there ship will bloody sink if i have my way.

How is this for a piss take , we have phoned Llanelli Magistrates court , still trying to get all the names etc of evryone present ,magi's , usher s and guys from the council , etc was told they can't provide that information over the phone because of the Data Protection ACT , if we want that information we would have to fax a request in , which I have done just got a fax saying and i quote:

FAO Mr Simon Elder
Dear Sir, i acknowledge receipt of your fax recived today, the contents of which I note. unfortunately , I am unable to provide you with the information you have requested
Your fathfully
D M Llewellyn
Deputy Clerk to the Justices

I guess that is why he is just the deputy then

[kevin]

And there ship will bloody sink if i have my way.

It's about time it did flippin sink with all the lying gits on board

[IamallthatIam]

had a feeling that would be the reponse i got somehow.....

,,, good job i dont these then...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/identification_of_magistrates_an

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/are_magistrates_and_judges_exemp

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/are_magistrates_entitled_to_deny

what the betting all goes very quiet ????

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

I'm perfectly happy to be in contempt of them ... provided you make that "utter contempt".

Then do not be surprised if you are locked up and fined. Contempt is what many officers of the court have for the people who stand before them. I do not believe reciprocating that will not solve any of the problems we face in court.

"Dishonour" is a relative term ... their dishonour can easily be my HONOUR, therefore. (Especially if I say so)

Dishonour is actually very specific term within the judicial system; it is when we do not offer some form of acceptance of the charges, as many have already discerned from their own experiences. Entering a defence without a counterclaim also comprises dishonour, as does failure to rebut a claim when presented with the opportunity to do so.

"The renouncing of which does not close or settle any matter ... "... well that's tough titty on them innit?

Really Veroncia? When the same matters just keep coming back and biting people on the arse over and over again, all because they never did a conditional acceptance? The courts can ONLY deal with our STRAWMEN, so flesh and blood claiming common law jurisdiction in an admiralty court is like going to an AA meeting and demanding some alcohol.

"... except the sacrifice of our purpose-built vessel for the choppy waters of maritime" ... purpose-built by whom? I don't care if their ship sinks.

It is my understanding that the Crown built the vessel after the granting of our given name in the application for a certificate of live birth, but the STRAWMAN belongs the flesh and blood, not the Crown, otherwise we could forward all its bills to the Treasury for settlement, which many have already attempted without success.

Peace