To: From
Date:
Notice and Request
Dear sir, Madam,
We write regarding the above Court case number and wish to point out the following:
You may understand or should be aware of that All Administrative Courts are UNLAWFUL “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful”. The case of R V Thistlewood (1820) established that “To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason”.
Furthermore, it clearly states under Halsbury’s Administrative Law 2011 Halsbury’s 4th Edition of Law 2011 (Laws of England) confirms that administrative law is (defined as nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary and that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject there is NO judicial authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.
Lord Diplock stated … (its recorded in HALSBURYS Laws of England) “All administrative courts are illegal and can never be legislated into existence”, performing administrative acts on behalf of the executive is incompatible with the terms of the Oath, which Judges take when they are created under Section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, which every Judge must take.
A breach of that Oath is perjury. Perjury act 1911 section 5 False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.
If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made—
(a)in a statutory declaration; or (b)in an abstract, account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry, estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make, attest, or verify, by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force; or (c)in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
Moreover, ‘Administrative Law’ forms no part of ‘the laws and usages of the realm’ – Which Judges swear to the Sovereign to uphold via Promissory Oath that binds them to a specific course of conduct – otherwise they cannot be said to perform their judicial duties impartially.
This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250:
“There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.” OR THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF 1688 ACTIONABLE ACTIONS OF A HUMAN BEING OR CORPORATE PERSONA
CASE LAW OF – R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210. In delivering the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said:- “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it.
TAKE NOTICE that A person appearing in the writ / claim or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, for example, WDH or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party. See 4 BI.Comm.134.
TAKE NOTICE the Supreme Court have ruled that:
1. “jurisdiction you have to have someone at some point in time before judgment raise their hand and testify under oath and subject to cross examination or its nonsense”
2. “Subject matter jurisdiction” is having the facts in front of the court to make a judgment”
3. “A judgment rendered has to show witness testimony”
4. “Statements of counsel in brief or argument are not sufficient for summary judgments”
5. “Actual facts” not mere allegations of complaint are determinative of jurisdiction”
6. Final judgments “no answer defaults are not deemed to be final judgments, examination of record must show witness testifying to facts”
7. “No witness, No facts, no jurisdiction, it’s the law”
8. “No competent witness no case”
Our constitutional documents have been breached for example:
Act of Settlement (1700) No regal Government since 1973
Coronation Oath Act 1868
The Promissory Oaths Act 1868
Treason Act 1795
Bill of Rights 1689
TAKE NOTICE that on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."
This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).
62. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."
63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ." This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.
Furthermore, Archbold Criminal Evidence and Pleadings 6th Edition: Disobeying a Statute 1-6
(7) Disobedience to statutes
Where a statute has declared any act or omission to be treason, felont, misprision of treasonor misdemeanour, an indictment lies in respect of suh an act or omission. Even though a statute does not use express terms describing the nature of the offence. If it prohibits a matter of public grievence to the liberties and securities of the subject, or commands a matter of public convenience (such as repairing of highways or the like), all acts or omissions contrary to the prohibition or command of the statute are mis-demeanours at common law, punishable on indictment by unlimited fine, unless such method of procedure manifestly appears to be excluded by the statute: 2 Hawk. C. 25, s4; R. v. Wright (1758) 1 Burr. 543; R. v Hall [1891] 1Q.B. 747; R. v Lennox- Wright [1973] Crim. L. R. 529, CCC (H.H. Judge Lawson Q.C.). In R. v Horseferry Road JJ,, ex p. Independent Broadcasting Authority [1987] Q.B. 54. DC. It was held that the doctrine of contempt of statute” was no more than a rule of construction.
TAKE NOTICE that in 1973 the UK entered into the EU without any full referendum on FULL MEMERSHIP, (so all acted in treason without consent from the sovereign people or Monarch). Therefore, every piece of Legislation created and passed by all non-regal parliaments since 1973 are indeed null and void.
Furthermore, in Donnelly v Dechristoforo, 1974, SCT. 41709 ¶ 56, U.S. 637 (1974) McNally v. U.S. 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Hol 816 F.2d. 304, 397 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit…
I give you 7 days to rebut all of the above TAKE NOTICE that failure to respond will create legal accord and tacit acquiescence that all herein be true and you will cease and desist your false claim forthwith.
By: ……………………………….
Name:
Beneficiary
No comments:
Post a Comment