Bill of rights?

This being my first real post let me please say what a friendly site this is. And a big HELLO.
iv been a regular visiter but being a man of few words i dont tend to post on any forum. ( shy i guess):blush:
but this post i hope will make up for lack of.
I was reading a post (copied and pasted bellow) from another site and thought it might be worth a read.
at this point i should say ‘im not implying any of the post bellow is true’, (im not a Lawyer)
Maybe a member is and might like to offer an opinion.
It left me with more Questions than Answers.
Their was far more info on this site about this and many other legal aspects, i found was if nothing else, a fun read
for a rebel.
i will put a link at the bottom of the page, hope thats ok with the MOD’s.

In a British court of law - know your rights and how True British Law can protect you

It is respectfully submitted to you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1689 make clear in law that no Officer or Minister of the Crown may depart from the duties that are imposed by the provisions of the Act, under any circumstances whatsoever.

It is respectfully submitted to the you that all members of the Courts, being themselves Officers of the Crown, are legally obliged to maintain those particular provisions of law that are defined by the Bill of Rights, 1689, notwithstanding any provision that may be made by other legislation and/or by any other forms of regulation.

It is respectfully submitted to you that no member of the Courts may
act in any way that serves to deny or otherwise remove those legal responsibilities that are imposed upon all Officers of the Crown by the provisions of the Bill of Rights, 1689.

It is respectfully submitted to the you that the particular responsibility in
Law that is imposed upon the Courts by the Bill of Rights, 1689, is contained
within that particular provision of the Act, which states as follows -

“Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing
the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained
by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it
may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted
and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights
and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed,
adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in
the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their
Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come”

In both Common Law and in Statute Law, it is provided that -

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor (condemn him) (defined by the Statute as meaning ‘deal with him’), (1) but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man; we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

Item (2) “That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.” Bill of Rights 1689 Section 2 clause 12

Simply put; if you are given a fine without being put in a court of law first, the fine is invalid. This applies to any fine given to you including speeding fines, congestion charge, and a fine given to you by a policeman, any fine you receive. Item (2)

When you go to the court for none payment of the fine, or you fill in the slip to have the matter dealt with in a court of law, you must demand to be tried by a jury, (trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land) the magistrate will say “I cannot offer you that option “. You reply “I want a jury and that is not your option, it belongs to me the defendant”. They will say “we are bound by statutes” which in reply you say “I am glad you are bound statutes and I am glad you have said that for it is statute that gave you your existence as a magistrate” and further more “you are bound by the first of these statutes The Bill of Rights 1689, which clearly states; item (1)

The magistrate will probably say “I still cannot give you that option” so you reply “The Bill of Rights 1689 requires you, as an officer of the crown, to serve the crown in accordance to the provisions of the Act” and furthermore “you must serve your majesty in accordance to this Act, for you cannot break your Oath of Allegiance you swore to become a magistrate, the option is mine and if you refuse to grant me my option, which is my right under the Act, then you yourself are in breach of common law, so you have no choice but to acquit me, for you have no right to deny me my birthrights as a British subject”. I will report soon of someone who not only used this system but got their expenses paid to them in full.

If they do not send you a court date, and they just send bailiffs to your house, then just comply with the bailiffs wishes. Then go immediately to your nearest magistrate court and apply for a “Statutory Declaration”. The Statutory Declaration is your chance to put to the court you was unaware of the trial to convict you, and you were not given your rights to defend yourself. This will overturn the ruling against you and the bailiff must return your money or your goods fore with.

In a court of law the jury is sovereign which basically means they make the ultimate decision on guilty or not guilty. The jury under common law can go against any law if they feel the law is unjust. They have the power to “null” a case if they feel the charge is unjust. No judge can rule against the jury’s final decision.

Protect yourself with this knowledge, for as we will prove very soon, Judges and magistrates dare not go against the Bill of Rights 1689, for it is the very statute they must obey.

slap with the newbie stick and where is your post in the newbie section…I will now read this and pass a proper comment.

welcome aboard CPT

I would probably go as far as to say there are other laws and bylaws, and there will be laws to the carriage ways themselves, which could dismiss this ruling.

I could be wrong, but if I’m getting a £30 parking ticket, I’m not going to go through all this gonads the time it would take.

Also look at if by some grace of god he gets a jury together, and you lose, who do you think will pick up the legal bill?

ty sleeper,

im guessing but why would they take you to crown court, they would of broke their own Law, most laws are not Law as such rather statut law. and is taken from fleet/commercial law. and as such involves goods and things of value not the person. thats why you stand in the dock, when the magistrate ask’s do you understand and you reply ‘i do’, what your really saying is you agree to ‘standing under’ their law and except whatever they should like to burden you with. fleet law has its own language yes it is called legalease. sounds like English looks like English but the words have a completely different meaning.

the site i posted is still worth a look. and as i said earlier its not just about speeding more about how in 10 years this country has stood around blindly excepting just another 2000 odd new statute’s/laws.


I hope women are not reading this, us blokes will be in the proper poo otherwise.