Page 1 of 1

NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:00 am
by holy vehm
Some of you may have missed the recent link addition to the forum (contempt of court unravelled) under the main header.

Here is the link http://contempt.fmotl.com/

As ever, very useful and detailed information, provided by veronica.

namaste

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:08 am
by holy vehm
Quoted from the contempt of court article.

"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."

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:27 am
by MikeThomas
Excellent research there Veronica! :yes:

Keep bumping this topic please or, if someone has the know how, can we make it 'sticky'?

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:09 pm
by Strange
Thanks for the information very interesting

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:30 am
by ArturoDekko
Brilliant :clap:

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:45 pm
by tritowns
new, here... lots of work for my printer i see... thank you all for your hard work and bring this to us.

Re: NEW, contempt of court

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:20 pm
by squark
Gordon Hall (creditors in commerce) advises if threatened with contempt (its a threat)
Very good your Honour in that case, in order to avoid being held in contempt, under threat, duress and coercion I will say what ever you want me to say and do whatever you want me to do.

You just offered him a contract, if he doesn't say no then you are free to assume yes, just make sure you do what you promised and say just what he wants you to.
Wait for the next question and ask how he would like you to answer. Its all done under duress so is not binding.

Its a game. You Ping....They Pong... :grin: