It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Interesting Day in a English Court

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I hope this is the right place for this as it does have a "Ideal" twist to it.

In some ways, if I didn't know better, I would almost think this was a Monty Python skit, but no , it is real.

I am sure the lawyers in the house will appreciate this one. I don't really want to spoil it for you, but the bottom line is, it was proven that the accused party was found guilty before the court session ever even started. Papers signed sealed and dated. It is almost comical how the accused becomes not guilty, because of so many laws implemented into the system to safe guard itself. If it wasn't for this safe guard system, no one would have ever discovered the above fact that the accused was all ready found guilty.

The video, though sometimes a bit hard to watch as the graphics of the writing are hard to read, is still easy enough to follow along.I am quite sure legal minds will enjoy this. It is in two parts which I have posted below.

Long and short, seems it does pay To Know the Law!

Part 1:



Part 2:





posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Thanks for finding this, it is a Must watch in my opinion and im glad you took the time to post it here.

This is a good example of people taking back control without picking up guns.

I am inspired to see that people actually had the intestinal fortitude to make that video happen.

F+S,

Respectfully,

~meathead



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Its quite amazing how much power we have as a sovereign individual.And how much we have when we refuse to stand under them .Do you understand ? Funny isn't it . When you consider their legalize that makes a human a monster. Common law requires there is a victim and commercial law requires a contract.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
This video was posted a little while ago here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I say now as I did then, none of that video made any legal sense.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So basically some guy that thinks he's right just keeps incorrectly talking about what definitions and throwing verbal excrement around until everyone else in the room has a brain explosion? Alright.

Why was judgment passed before the case was heard? Gee, I wonder...

Really, you really need to look no further than the guy who posted the video and what other videos he uploaded to see the type of person you're dealing with.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What did I just see.

Was this for real ? and if so, does this mean that those guys of the naval law ??? Can they pack up and simply cease to implement naval law ?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 


all i will say is if people know the truth about courts and trials
ex link explains the real world of ucc law

very very insightful vid
www.tpuc.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
No, this is nonsense. There is no "hidden truth" except to those who can't be bothered to read a book about law! Have any of you who are championing this video actually done that yourself?

Just think about it for a minute without wishing it to be true. Law doesn’t work if its secret, what would be the point of having some complex admiralty law if you intend on having everyone believe in the system of statutes and legal precedence? In order to implement the secret legal system you would still have to have a public face that mirrored the secret exactly. Otherwise you would get this;

Judge – “You are charged with driving without a licence”
Me – “But I have a licence, here it is”
Judge – “Ah but admiralty law says you have to have it licked by the queen”
Me – “Admiralty law?”
Judge – “Oh no, rumbled!”

It makes no sense.

And if it was about curbing freedoms that exist under admiralty (or this bastardised version of common law) then it still makes no sense. If the government want everyone to have a driving licence in order to drive a car but admiralty law says I don’t need one why would they mess about trying to secretly implement some obscure system in an overly complex manner when they could just scrap the law that practically nobody has heard of? Just about everyone already thinks laws are created by parliament so why would “tptb” persist in using admiralty law when the publicly known legal system does what they want it to and the people already invest power into it?


The video itself shows nothing more than a wilfully ignorant moron wasting court time (and breaking the law by filming it) by trying to pass off a birth certificate as a real person and then declaring victory when everyone else has had enough; it sounds like a typical thread on ATS!

The liability order was still given so this “defence” certainly wasn’t successful. As for the time on the document, that refers to the time that the hearing was to start (10.00 though it was delayed for one and a half hours to 12.30); there’s no fraud.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



The video itself shows nothing more than a willfully ignorant moron wasting court time (and breaking the law by filming it) by trying to pass off a birth certificate as a real person and then declaring victory when everyone else has had enough; it sounds like a typical thread on ATS!


This.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Whatever the merits of the stand taken in court by the man, it does goes to show that when it comes to legal matters, you either have to be an expert in legal affairs by profession or hobby, or read up lots about legal affairs, and know what you are looking for, in order not to be sowed up by legal affairs.

There are legal loopholes and stipulations that people can use, but the ordinary person would not know them, and would have to hire a good lawyer in order to have the legal system be balanced and not stacked against you through your lack of knowledge.

Just a note. the court is in Cwmbran, so is not an English court, but a Welsh court, and has British jurisdiction over it as Wales is part of the UK, so is overall a British court.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I confess to being somewhat bemused by this.

Either

1. The guy is speaking utter gibberish and the Court is disrupted to such an extent that it is abandoned because the magistrate has lost control. From what I could gather the magistrate had difficulty getting heard and the defendant clearly had his supporters in the room.

2. The guy has a legitimate point. If so he could have dealt with the issue in a less antagonistic way.

I am inclined to think that he was talking gibberish and behind the smarmy commentary there is an agenda of disruption based on nothing more than a selective interpretation of English Common Law. I bet the defendant did not get off and victory was not his in the end.

Observation…

1. The police were clearly uncomfortable and would not have been able to make any legal judgements, so it was unfair to expect them to do so. They should not have been called.

2. Hypocrisy of the defendant “team” as they secretly filmed the proceedings in the Court, thus breaking the law – Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. Let’s hope the police pursue this criminal act.

Regards

Edit: Just to add that English Law is applicable to Wales too and should read "English and Welsh". Scotland have differences.

[edit on 17/8/2010 by paraphi]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Mike_A
 



The video itself shows nothing more than a willfully ignorant moron wasting court time (and breaking the law by filming it) by trying to pass off a birth certificate as a real person and then declaring victory when everyone else has had enough; it sounds like a typical thread on ATS!


This.
Even though I started the other thread on this video. I'd usually be inclined to agree to a point. But, that point ends with someone showing me another case where the courts just decided to go away and not do anything.

Does anyone have another case like this to compare it to? Who can "get away" with contempt of court, and filming in a court, without being sent to the klink for a small think about what they've done? I think the fact that the police didn't arrest anyone for contempt of court, speaks some volume about the legitimicy of this line of defence.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


The defendant wasn’t present, the “person” that the shouty man kept referring to was actually the defendant’s birth certificate which these freemen mistakenly think represents a legal fiction that is the legal stand in for a natural person (it’s not). Since the defendant wasn’t present, or at least he didn’t make himself known to the court, then the hearing couldn’t proceed. Since the hearing couldn’t proceed and the defendant didn’t offer a defence then he was given the order.

These freemen think that the law only applies to companies and that the act of producing a birth certificate and having one’s name written in capitals confers company status on a natural person thus allowing them to be subject to the law. It’s, not a selective interpretation of common law, it’s an utterly made up fairy tale with a hefty dose of legalise.


reply to post by Acidtastic
 


As above the court didn’t decide to just go away and do nothing, they abandoned the hearing because the defendant wasn’t present and they went ahead and issued the liability order.


Who can "get away" with contempt of court, and filming in a court, without being sent to the klink for a small think about what they've done?


Do we know that they weren’t? The video looked as though it was made with a concealed camera to me; in which case they may not even know hearing was filmed.

Even if they weren’t what would it prove other than the CPS didn’t think it was worth the time and money doing so.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Well, thanks for the clarification Mike_A. My hunch that the guy was speaking giggerish is therefore upheld. I wonder when it becomes an offence for wasting the time of public servants and / or debilitating the running of the legal process through faffing about.

Regards



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Well, thanks for the clarification Mike_A. My hunch that the guy was speaking giggerish is therefore upheld. I wonder when it becomes an offence for wasting the time of public servants and / or debilitating the running of the legal process through faffing about.

Regards



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join