What I would do if I was ever Summons to a so-called Magistrates or County Court
(aka "Star Chamber")
Update: Late September, 2012
I walk in to a Magistrate's or County so-called 'Court'.
I would stand, and note there is no space for a Jury.
I would say, to whoever is sitting there: "Do you intend to proceed?".
They MUST say: "Yes" ... (and probably "Please sit down as quickly as you can").
I would remain standing, and say: "I do not consent to these proceedings ... do you still intend to proceed?".
They will say something like: "Yes".
So then I would say: “Are you saying that you can proceed without my consent?”.
(Having gone that far) They must say something that means: "Yes".
When they've responded to the fact that 'They don't need my consent', I would say: "LEGALLY that's true of course, but LAWFULLY it is untrue ... very much untrue. Do you know the difference between LEGAL and LAWFUL?"
Now that has to invoke a response! Who knows what the response would be? Probably something along the lines of: "They are the same thing".
To which I would reply: "That's not true at all ... they are - in point of fact - direct opposites. If you don't know what LAWFUL means, then you shouldn't be sitting there".
So I would say: "For that reason you are under arrest for stating that you intend to proceed - in an Administrative capacity - without the consent of both Parties ... could someone please call the Police ... so that this person (these people) can be charged with Misconduct in Public Office and Treason by attempting to subvert the British Constitution".
I would wait ... and tell the Police I will accompany them to the Station, to swear out the COMMON LAW charges of "Misconduct in Public Office" and “Treason”.
While I waited, I would explain what I was doing ... and what "Misconduct in Public Office" means. I would also explain, to all the other so-called Court staff (Star Chamber staff), that they can be charged as accessories/accomplices. I'd give all the other functionaries the opportunity to leave before the Police arrive, telling them that I will make them accomplices if they are still there when the Police arrive.
As, and when, the Police arrived, I would explain to them that their job is NOT to decide on whether or not the charges are valid, and/or whether of not the Judge/Magistrates are guilty/not guilty of anything. Their job is simply to process my complaint, and let the Judicial System provide a REAL Court (i.e. one with a Jury) to hear my charges. And for a Jury to reach the Verdict.
If necessary (if I got no co-operation) I would do it via a Private Prosecution ... also charging those who would not assist me.
PRIOR TO the "Do you intend to proceed?" question, it is possible to ask: "Is this a Constitutionally-convened Court of Law?"
Now, what are they going to say to that? There are about 4 possibilities:
1. "Yes" (in which case they are FUCKED - see
2. "No" (in which case they are FUCKED - because that's an immediate admission of criminal intent … if we continue with the original questions).
3. 'Silence' … in which case they are FUCKED … because we'll just repeat the question.
4. Or something like: "That's none of your business", or: "That doesn't matter", or: "We are not here to answer YOUR questions" … or some other utter bollox … in which case they are FUCKED … if we continue with the original questions.
The interesting one is: "Yes".
This can be followed up with: "Which Constitutional Convention defined these proceedings as Constitutional?"
Now they are FUCKED. They would have to quote "The Magistrate's Court Act" … or some such crap.
Because then next question is: "Was the Magistrates Court Act the outcome of a Constitutional Convention?"
Ho, Ho Ho! The reply would be: "The Magistrates Court Act was determined by Parliament"
So it's: "How does that render it Constitutional? Were the Members who voted favour all Constitutional Experts then? I find that hard to imagine. After all, some of them have difficulty in writing their own names, don't they? Parliament most decidedly DOES NOT comprise Constitutional Experts, which is the reason for the possibility of Jury Nullification. It isn't possible to change a Constitution without having a Constitutional Conference, jam-packed with Constitutional Experts - who VERY CAREFULLY weigh up the Pros & Cons of and amendment that is being considered. Have another go: Is this a Constitutionally-convened Court of LAW?"
Back to square one.
When they get arsey … as they will … it's back to: "Do you intend to proceed?", etc … as necessary.
Veronica, June 2012.
Update: Late September, 2012
Here's what they are doing:
1. They send an 'invitation' - called 'a Summons' - to a dwelling. Only a man or woman is capable of interpreting the document (a cat can't ... a dog can't ... a chair can't ... and so on)
2. The man or woman makes the effort to go to the place defined (the Star Chamber), at the time/date defined.
3. Upon arrival, the Bench 'can't see', and 'can't hear', the man or woman ... the Bench can only 'see' and 'hear' a Legal Fiction ... such as when the man or woman consents to accept responsibility for the Legal Fiction (i.e. the "Name"). [They have admitted - multiple times - that they "Can only act against a Name". They cannot, for example, act against "Persons unknown"].
4. But 'a Name' is not the man or woman. By many means a Name can be detached from a man or woman, and a different Name attached e.g. Deed Poll, or simply 'by social agreement, during social intercourse ... whereby nicknames are attached, etc'.
It would be a very good idea if this were to be pointed out to them at every occasion, including the ABSURDITY of their position in this respect.
I have the experience of standing next to a man, in a Star Chamber, and heard the Judge say he was going to issue a Warrant for the Arrest of the man I was standing next to. JUST HOW ABSURD WAS THAT???
When, after any exchange between the Bench and the man or woman, and said man or woman refuses to "make a plea", they will say that they will unilaterally enter a plea of "not guilty". At this point DEMAND that they prove "Power of Attorney" to do such a thing, pointing out that if they cannot PROVE Power of Attorney, then THEY are taking FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY for that plea. (At the time of writing, this causes multiple 'adjournments'. They simply don't know what to do. Quite how they will find a way around this I do not know - at the time of writing).
Veronica, September 2012