Carrots and Sticks

Chapter Version 1.1 [24MAR2013]

In previous Chapters I've said that the Magna Carta 1215 was the Treaty that founded the British Constitution, according to Halsbury's Laws of England, reference:  STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts.

(Bear in mind that, here yet again, we have this curious and constant Double-Think, by mixing "Statutes/Non-Law" with The Common Law).

However, even under the Halsbury's Double-think, the source of the British Constitution is agreed to be the Magna Carta 1215. (Notice: Halsbury's makes no reference whatsoever to any other 'Magna Cartas', such as the 1225 and 1297 attempts at 'variance'). Under the Magna Carta 1215, and thus the British Constitution, one always has the Indefeasible Right to be tried by "A Jury of one's Equals" - historically being accepted as "12 other impartial Human Beings".

Which is all well and good but, because the Establishment is terrified of Juries (due to the power of a Jury to overturn ANY provision of ANY Statute), they will fight tooth and nail to prevent cases being heard by a Jury.

Or, to put it another way, they will do their level best to ensure that 'plebs' DON'T REALISE their Right to a Jury Trial. They will certainly never offer one of their own accord (unless THEY decide to), and will do their level best to "blank" those who simply "demand" one as their Right in Law.

What they (fundamentally) do is run a system to their own convenience. They will instigate a Jury Trial when they think it is safe to do so (i.e. when no Statutory Provision is at risk). They will publish the mechanism they use (they have to, in order to maintain what they consider to be 'integrity'), but that publication will be so disguised and embedded, such that the average 'pleb' has no idea where to find it. Only the 'initiates' (into their Legal World) are told where to find this information.

'Skulduggery' is the only word that can be used to describe the situation.

However, the 'cat is out of the bag'. The mechanism is to take a prosecution case, in the form of Indictments, to a Magistrates Court aka Star Chamber, and to obtain a Signature of a Magistrate, Judge or Clerk. (Cases created by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are generally waved through this process, by means of rubber-stamping).

The Magistrates Court, being a Star Chamber, has no Common Law jurisdiction to actually 'hear' the case, but it does form the (current) mechanism to 'move the prosecution into the Common Law jurisdiction', which is the same thing as saying 'Commit the case to a Crown Court - which DOES have Common Law jurisdiction'.

BUT - THEY DON'T LIKE DOING THAT (unless, the CPS is actually requesting it).

They certainly don't like admitting that they actually have no authority to try anyone, or to 'hear' any case - WITHOU T THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED INDIVIDUAL. So a deception was necessary. A carrot and a stick. The 'carrot' was (and still is): If the Magistrates are ALLOWED to decide the outcome, their powers to sentence WHEN (not 'IF', but WHEN) they find the Accused guilty, are severely limited - as compared to a sentence that could be received from a Crown Court Trial - for the exact same offence, and a guilty Verdict.

The next 'phase' of that carrot/stick was that many individuals - especially if they knew they were guilty - would opt for the lighter sentencing powers of Magistrates, because the choice could easily have been between a 9-month jail sentence (from Magistrates), and a 4-year jail sentence from Crown Court (for the same offence and circumstances).

So, eventually, they stopped bothering to offer the option. And, instead, Magistrates feel that they are entitled to assume that anyone, accused of anything, can be found guilty by them (no matter what the Accused may say).

They utilise the charade of offering the Accused a plea, by saying: "How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?". As soon as a plea is made, it is the same thing as saying "I accept your carrot, because I am allowing you to decide my fate, to be beaten by your stick, as opposed to a bigger stick wielded by a Crown Court Judge". And, furthermore, they won't actually let on that 'making a plea' is nothing more than an 'offer'. They will actually insist that a plea is made. EVEN IF REFUSED, they will then say "In that case we will enter a plea of Not Guilty on your behalf"!

I hope the last paragraph has given the Reader a flavour of how 'hog-tied' one is in such a Star Chamber?

But, there are ways out. If YOU are innocent, and sufficiently knowledgeable and persistent.  (Obviously, if you are guilty, it is best to accept the carrot).

However, if one is innocent the chances of being found anything other than guilty, in a Star Chamber, are pretty remote. Certainly compared with one's chances of convincing a Jury of one's innocence.

But how does one stop becoming 'hog-tied' in the Star Chamber?

Well, the first thing is NOT to make a plea but, instead, to say: "There is no case to answer. If you think that there is, then I require an Old-Style Verbal committal to Crown Court".

Eyebrows will raise, you'll quite possibly here grunting and gurgling sounds from the animals sitting behind the Bench.

And, the Clerk of the Court may very well say: "In that case we will enter a plea on your behalf" in other words, will completely ignore you, and carry on with the hog-tying mechanism.

The response to this is: "I do not recall giving you Power of Attorney. Please show me the document, signed by my hand, which transfers Power of Attorney to you. If you can't do that, then YOU must be accepting ALL LIABILITY for any plea you enter. Now, I repeat, there is no case to answer. So, do we proceed with an Old-Style Verbal Committal procedure, or do we all just go home, having wasted everyone's time? ".

You have (a) Not accepted their authority to make a 'finding' against you, because you have not entered a plea, and (b) Only left them with the option of deciding whether or not to commit you to Crown Court (and off their 'plate').

If they refuse to go though the Committal Procedure, then they are completely empty-handed, and would, therefore, only have the option to dismiss the case.

BUT: THEY KNOW IT WOULD LOOK BAD FOR THEM, IF THEY COMMITTED YOU TO CROWN COURT FRIVOULOUSLY. (Crown Court time, and procedures, are 'expensive' - and they know that).

Consequently, while they would like to get you 'off their plate' that way, THEY REALISE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THAT 'LIGHTLY'.

Consequently, you have - to some extent - now hog-tied THEM!

And they will HATE it!

Because they know that computer-generated so-called evidence that THEY would accept, would NOT be acceptable in a Crown Court!

So now what are their options? The answer is: To retire and make a decision, and to return and GRUDGLINGLY dismiss the case, if (for example) the only so-called 'evidence' has been presented by a Local Council Prosecutor, standing there and reading from computer printouts. Or, as another example, a CPS Prosecutor (acting on behalf of the Police) reading from a crib-sheet.

If they commit a case to Crown Court on the basis of that kind of evidence, a Judge would throw the case out at the first step.

They may argue (or the Clerk of the Court may argue).

All arguments can be batted for six by: "Halsbury's Laws of England states clearly and unequivocally that the Magna Carta 1215 Treaty was the founding document of the British Constitution. In that document it says very clearly that any subsequent attempt to supersede it, is null & void. Article 39 states that I ALWAYS have the Right to a Trial by Jury. To attempt to deny me that Right is, therefore, an attempt to subvert the British Constitution, which is defined elsewhere - actually R. v Thistlewood (1820) - as Treason. And, by the by, Article 45 says 'We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well', and I suggest that applies to yourselves. The law of the realm can only be the Common Law, because there was no Parliament, and therefore no Statutes, in the year 1215".

DO NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - READ THAT (or anything else) FROM A CRIB SHEET. That will be taken to assume that you don't really know what you are doing.




That's how you learn to save yourself, without relying on anyone else.

Previous Chapter : Next Chapter

(This page produced in its entirety on Veronica's Local Web Organiser Veronica: of the Chapman family, 2006-2013)