Merlin | 13.01.2012 18:20 | Other Press
We as lay representatives recieved only our instruction to act on behalf of "Persons Unknown" less than 24 hours ago. We attempted in the following way to obtain an adjournment to allow us to study the case further but sadly the following happened, meaning we are now forced to give this statement:
"We the lay representatives appointed by the agent for "PERSONS UNKNOWN" (in this case) whom, by the courts papers definition are UNKNOWN therefore cannot be proved to be in the court today, we state the following as a true and honest account, state the following as a true and honest account of proceedings held in court today.
We requested before entry to the court that did he agree "We were entering the court room with all my natural and unassailable rights." The Judge agreed.
We then requested that "Can our lawful witnesses also enter the court room with all their natural and unassailable rights." The Judge agreed. We all then entered the court room.
We instructed the Judge at that point :
"We claim Common Law Jurisdiction in this Court."
The Judge agreed to this.
We then asked the Judge to produce his oath to prove his Jurisdiction in this court to us - he refused to do so. We requested again and he refused.
Therefore we stated that we could not recognise his Jurisdiction until we had seen his oath but the Judge in the mean time and simultaneously decided to make the Judgement of the case. All through this despite not having proven jurisdiction.
We then stated we do not recognise the Jurisdiction of the Judge and so the Court. At this point we called the police as under Common Law we were entitled to due process that was not granted by the Judge.
The Judge then submitted a Summary Juudgement without permitting a Trial.
The Judge then left the court where we asked whether the Judge had abandoned the court or had a adjourned the hearing. The clerk refused to reply.
Due to no response from the clerk we declared to the clerk we had now, as lay representatives, the highest lawfull authority in the court so therefore we had no option but to take control of the court and Dissmiss the Case.
This we have done and do not recognise the Judges ruling today as he failed to provide and adhere to Lawfull due process for the defence in this case.
This is a very sad case. We as Peacemakers are seeking to ensure that if a case in law is brought against any member of the public then that member has the right to Lawfull Due process.
This case proves that the Judiciary has experienced a ruling without a trial.
A Judge has made a Judgement without hearing any evidence from the defence.
This is a failure of Human Rights under Common Law. END