Westminster Magistrates Court Investigation 02/03/2023
If you have any of the following information please email to westminster@peacekeepers.org.uk
Following George’s Council Tax hearing at Westminster what an amazing turnout – thank you all for your support!
There is not much more the court, its security, the police, the barrister or the judge could have done wrong, and thankfully sufficient people have understood the courses and that it all starts with evidence... where a number of people went around and got details of security staff and police, put them with the knowledge that their actions were unlawful, and those brave first ones standing on their rights were quickly supported by others who rightfully intervened under their obligations to one another to keep the peace by investigating when it appears someone is being harmed and assisting them by further standing on their rights... NO MORE TURNING A BLIND EYE!
Not only were the Court, their security or the police out of their depth because this must be a first that they were facing empowered people with knowledge who stood on their rights and thereby harmed no one, and even gave them all the opportunity to amend their ways by providing them with the relevant law that the law is clear you can film in any public place by showing them the definition of a public place as being any place public have access to (nothing to do with who owns it private or otherwise or whether you need to pay an entrance fee or not!).
Instead the usual uniform ego kicks in of I told you and how dare you not obey my command... who do these people think they are – God???
They are no different to you or me, and that includes the King and members of parliament! We are all equal under the law and no one is above the law. We all have an obligation to keep the peace which means no one has the right to knowingly cause another harm, and when we see someone being harmed we have an obligation to intervene otherwise we are failing in our obligation to keep the peace!!!
ZERO ARRESTS showing you the actions were lawful as the police simply use threats and actual arrests as fear tactics so on the balance of probabilities you will be able to bring both civil and criminal charges if your peace has been breached without lawful excuse!
A lot of allegations have been made including:
- Total incompetence of the Court by failing to make adjustments requested 2 days before the hearing to provide a court with a public gallery to accommodate a minimum of 25 members of the public who had confirmed attendance, and on the day when it was obvious a half hour before that was woefully underestimated they should have moved the hearing into a suitable court and move other hearings without so many to smaller courts to make available space for the public!
- Locking the court room creating a health and safety risk for those within the court room.
- Instigators of which so far I have not seen any evidence, and
- Court staff and police failing to uphold the people’s right to film within public buildings (there is only an issue with filming live proceedings which themselves are not lawful as justice must be done publicly but that is a battle for another day!))
- Court staff and police failing to identify themselves, and
- Court staff causing public affray and police assisting, and
- Multiple assaults on multiple people by court security and police which depends on causation, and
- Multiple batteries on multiple people by court security and police which depends on causation, and
- Misconduct in public office by police abandoning their office which is a direct breach of their contract as expressed in their oaths, affirmations or attestations.
- Misconduct in public office by DJ Law by denying public access to the court without lawful excuse, discrimination against independant press, refusing George the right to present his case in the manner he felt best, and failing to give reasoned judgement!
- Misconduct in public office of Counsel by failing to provide the court with all relevant law in favour and dissent of his client’s case and thereby recklessly misleading the court!
OATHS, AFFIRMATIONS AND ATTESTATIONS ARE EXPRESSED CONTRACTS
They are no different from the expressed contract to govern, the Bill of Rights 1688 which cannot be changed by those governing as THIS DOCUMENT CREATES THEIR AUTHORITY TO GOVERN – WITHOUT THIS THEY HAVE ZERO AUTHORITY!!!
Further constitutional documents include the Coronation Oath Act 1688, Act of Settlement 1700, Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which guarantees the independence of the judiciary.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION – that is not even admissible in court as it is hearsay evidence!!!
NEXT STEPS...
Before any judgement can be made of these allegations, the evidence must be gathered and evaluated.
- The court will be asked to provide CCTV footage, and any incident report if they have any, and a witness statement of what they believe happened, and
- The court will be asked to provide each security guards details, and
- The court will be asked what the public gallery capacity of each of the courts is, and how many members of the public were in each public gallery, and
- The court will be asked what reasonable excuse they had for not initially listing the hearing in a court with minimum public gallery for 35 people as requested 2 days before the hearing, and once it became obvious closer to 100 would be needed why they failed to swop around court rooms even if that meant a delay in the commencement of the hearing.
- Each security guard will be asked to make a witness statement of what they believe happened, and
- Each police officer will be asked to make a witness statement of what they believed happened and
- All police body worn camera footage will be requested to evaluate the evidence, and
- Should they fail to provide this then a court order for its preservation and disclosure will be applied for, and
- Any police incidence reports will be requested of events at the court.
- Should they not comply then as they have been given the opportunity to provide evidence then we can only proceed with the knowledge they have breached our peace by failing in their obligation to settle disputes and are acting in dishonour, bad faith and with unclean hands...
Then we simply need to look at the courts own rules on how to proceed
Pre Action protocol – private settlement of dispute...
- Each victim must express how they were harmed, and
- These then need to be related to a lawful cause of action.
- CPS charging guides lay out the elements which must be proven, and
- Each victim must make a witness statement of what they claim, and
- The defendant must be identified (otherwise they simply get referred to as person unknown until they are identified including a plea to the public to identify them from pictures and videos), and
- As it is human to err and divine to forgive you must state the remedy you seek as the alleged harmed party, and
- This becomes your lawful excuse then to breach their peace, and
- You give them a suitable amount of time to go through the evidence and they have 3 choices:
- Admit each point, or
- Deny any point with counter evidence, or
- Ask you to provide further evidence if they cannot admit or deny any point.
- They then return this to you, and
- You then evaluate what they believe supported with their evidence, and
- If you still believe you have lawful excuse then rebut their rebuttal, and
- Offer them a further opportunity to resolve any remaining disputed points as described in step 8, and
- They then return this to you, and
- You then evaluate what they believe supported with their evidence, and
- If you still believe you have lawful excuse then rebut their rebuttal, and
- Offer them a final opportunity to resolve any remaining disputed points as described in step 8, and
- They then return this to you, and
- You then evaluate what they believe supported with their evidence, and
- Time frames depend on equity – what is fair and just...
- I would suggest 7 days to respond is reasonable as all the alleged offences are criminal and could attract up to life time imprisonment, and as this has to do with the rule of law which is foundational both the Judges and Polices action are potentially extreme breaches of public trust so we want to ensure they have the opportunity under natural justice to answer your allegations under their obligations to keep the peace!
Failing private settlement then public dispute resolution...
- If you still feel you have points in dispute then this is the basis to either bring civil or criminal proceedings against the person/s you believe harmed you having narrowed the issues to be resolved by the public courts.
- Should they choose not to engage in honour, by not engaging to resolve your dispute then they are forcing you to court and are thereby creating their own cost so win or loose no court in the land can award costs against you, and
- You can direct the jury (both for civil and criminal cases) to infer what they like from any testimony given in the court...
George’s ‘appeal’
In the first instance a section 142 will be issued to the court to reopen the case and set aside the order as DJ Law breached his obligations to the due process of law and hence the order is void, which the court is unlikely to do, however this is the first step...
George submitted his Section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 application which is a reminder (witness 1) of the facts of what happened on the day... This is an opportunity for the court to reopen the case (once judgement is made the case file is closed), and correct any miscarriage's of justice, and the court can do that by investigating the evidence and dismissing it (but in any event must give reasoned explanation as to how it reached its decision), may order a retrial, or may a=offer the complainant the opportunity to withdraw... At worst we are entitled to a reasoned response...
- If they refuse the options are for a relisting for trial by jury which is the obligation of the court under the Bill of Rights 1688 to provide as no fines or forfeitures can be made without a jury being impaled and returned under section 108.... THIS WILL BE INTERESTING AS MAGISTRATES HAVE FULL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION... and under the rules of equity would apply equally to any case, where the substance is A TRIAL BY JURY...
- And then from the Crown court we move it into the high court...
- Then the appeal court...
- Then the supreme court who have already ruled in 2019 the lawfulness of what people do is determined by the courts... and the jury will be Georges judge!
PLEASE SEND ANY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE INCLUDING NAME OF SECURITY STAFF AND POLICE - preferably with a picture as well to