Notice of Truth about UK Courts

Notice of Truth about Courts –
1. Issuing of a Summons:
Gateshead Justices,ex p.Tesco Stores Ltd [1981] Q.B.470,DC. a summons must be in accordance with Justice Clerks Rules 2005 (S.I.2005 No.545) The granting of summonses is more than a rubber-stamping exercise. The person issuing the summons must be authorised to do so and must scrutinise the information to satisfy themselves that the requirements are met and a summons properly granted. See Tesco Stores Ltd [1981] Q.B.470,DC. ARCHBOLD 4-77 PAGE 177 Magistrates criminal
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?. Halsbury?s Administrative Law 2011 confirms that administrative law is (nothing more than) an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And that the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and NO Act could be passed to legitimise them.
3. (“Administrative Law is nothing more than an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for Administrative Courts in the country, and no Act could be passed to legitimise them”
1. Halsbury’s states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts & Administrative Law FORMS NO PART OF “the laws and usages of the realm”. Halsbury’s states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts/Law is “merely an arrangement
> between the Executive & the Judiciary”.
2. At a Coronation Ceremony, a Monarch swears to uphold “the laws and usages of the realm”.
3. When a Judge is sworn in, s/he takes on Oath which swears to support the Coronation Oath to uphold “the laws and usages of the realm”.
4. Therefore Judges have NO JURISDICTION in Administrative Courts or under Administrative Law. They only have jurisdiction on a Common Law Court with a Jury of 12 (which is part and parcel of “the laws and usages of the realm”).
5. Magistrates Courts (where this Hearing was held) and all County Courts are Administrative Courts, applying ‘Administrative Law’. They are thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND FRAUDULENT. And, to quote Judge Cadbury’s masterful understatement:
“That’s going to cause a few problems, isn’t it?” (Even Crown & High Courts, with a Jury, are not entirely CONSTITUTIONAL, because the Judge is allowed to ‘direct’ a Jury’s Verdict)
The Judiciary comprises two types of court venues; a corporate administrative court, and a Common Law court of record?. A judge in an administrative court does not act judicially but as an administrator to settle contractual disputes. A judge in a court of record sits judicially with a jury of the People to remedy harm to other living people. The courts are attended by Commercial List Judges, some of whom are designated as jury judges able to sit in a Common Law court of record?
Common Law acknowledges the LAWFUL Rights possessed by living Men and Women. Statutes prescribe Legislation to administer artificial LEGAL Persons. A Statutory administrative court is for commerce, in practice (de facto). It is a place of corporate banking offering a dispute resolution service for consenting parties, where living men and women (unwittingly) consent to be a party (joined) to an artificial legal person, obligated to settle the accounts of commercial (adhesion) contracts. The Judge does not sit judicially but acts as a corporate administrative officer. Administrative courts are not sanctioned by Parliament and are not part of the de jure laws and usages of the realm. All administrative courts are UNLAWFUL because they do not have a jury present.
Administrative courts operate on assumptions and presumptions. The Crown makes the presumption that you are acting in joinder to the artificial person NAME. When you answer to the NAME, you are joining the action involving the NAME, such that the man/woman and the NAME are joined in a single case. But that case is in legal fiction commerce, in the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction, which is the International Law of the Sea. Having joined the case by your agreement by conduct, there is the presumption of your implied agency for the vessel NAME (i.e. JOHN DOE) on the sea of commerce, including your willingness to settle its account liabilities in court as the Trustee of the vessel’s Estate Trust (i.e. MR JOHN DOE TRUST).
All legal jurisdictions arise from the consent of a man/woman to be party to an artificial person NAME. Without consent, there can only be the presumption of consent. So when you rebut the presumption they have no jurisdiction and cannot proceed. Any further action is fraudulent.

By Warren Bell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s