Common Law Explained in 60 seconds
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 12. 2022
- My partner Dean of Buxton has been teaching Common Law workshops since 2020, as well as assisting those facing the Court process (as a McKenzie friend). He does not charge for these services (although he invites gifts of food if people wish to show their appreciation). He is dedicated to restoring the power back to the People ~ and in his world this comes via knowing (and exercising) our Common Law Rights.
Dean and I have been talking about creating a simple video explaining Common Law for some time ~ and here it is! Issued on 25 December 2022 as our Christ-Mass gift to The People.
Many say that Equity Law is superior to Common Law. Here is a video explaining how Equity Law was created specifically to TAKE AWAY the Power of the People, because some (undoubtedly members of the Aristocracy) were complaining to the King: • 2 7 Common Law and Equity
Specific point to note: She says that the Common Law was 'too rigid'. Meaning it could not be manipulated by those that wished to use the Law to their advantage.
Many say that Natural Law is superior to Common Law. But Man has no influence over Nature (although he may desire this!). And remember, the power in Nature goes to the strongest and the fittest.
Many refer to Statute, for example 'The Bill of Rights 1688'. However, no Government, Monarch or other 'Authority' gives you your Rights! The minute anyone involves Legal Statute in their explanations they are working within 'The System' ~ which is designed to be so complex that the Common Man (or Woman) finds it difficult to navigate it without a Solicitor or Barrister acting on his/her behalf (meaning he/she has consented to the jurisdiction of the Maritime 'Legal System').
For a wonderful example of Common Law in practice, listen to this re-creation on the Trial of William Penn ~ exercising his Right to find God in his own way: • William Penn Trial - Y...
William Penn went on to found Pennsylvania.
NB Common Law, as explained, applies to England (and the Commonwealth nations whose Law is based on the law of England). Other countries eg France have a different system of Law.
Dean and I would love your feedback on this video via the comments below.
Wishing you a very Merry Christ-Mass and a wonderful New Year!
May your 2023 be filled with Peace, Joy, Love, Health and Prosperity.
Love
Rachel x
(On behalf of Dean of Buxton too)
Excellent and well said . When you simplify it it's so easy to understand. Thank you Rachel ❤️
This is the law for our sovereign being away from our straw man entity created by the corporation. Love this Rachael
That's it, nice and simple for all to stand over.
Thank you Rachel. Happy Christmas and peace to all freedom fighters everywhere 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️
Marvellous. Ought to be taught in schools but of course we all know why it’s not on the curriculum.
They took our constitution out of school in the 70s, no wonder our people do not understand our rights, as for any American they are all taught the constitution,
Because it's absolute nonsense.
@@50somethinglawyerMay God Grant you understanding...😏
@grandfx9641 "Understanding" is knowledge and appreciation of the impact of facts so "God" as you may wish can keep that belief in absolute nonsense thank you.
@@50somethinglawyerwhat a load of convoluted BS! 😆
Excellent video - succinct, cogent and easy to understand - a great intro to our Common Law and unalienable rights. Thanks Dean & Rachel!
Crucial information ℹ️
Great stuff Rachel hope more people get involved with it. Fifteen of us from our local freedom group have sworn oaths as Common Law constables
Hi, that's great where are you based ?
@@10tendogsdonie North Yorks/Lancs border
@@jiltedjohn9294
Ahh, ok we're in the Warwickshire, well done the northen commolawers, 👍😊
@@10tendogsdonie We're trying to get interest and numbers up, hope you are too.
Thank you both so much for this Rachel and The Dean. God bless you both
Wish I'd have known this back in the 80s! Thanks for making it concise & unflowery.
Why what happened?
This is excellent. Thank you 💎
Brilliant...all good things are actually very simple ❤️
It's those who fall for this gibberish who are the very simple.
Thank you for this short, to-the-point, and easy-to-understand video. I always have trouble finding the right words when trying to explain to someone clueless the difference between law and legal. Now I'll carry the link to your video with me and suggest they watch it first of all. May you be inspired to share more such gems in the future.
How AWESOME is this! 🎉 Thank you Rachel! Happy New Year! Love from West Country 💕❤️💕
Excellent!!!
Thank you for this video.
Bless Rachel. ❤️❤️🙏🏻🙏🏻
During the death thralls of this relationship the British put in place legislation the purpose of which is solely to control of the commoners, other such pieces of legislation are the 1998 Human Rights Act and the ECHR. Why do I say that? Because all rely on three untruths told to con you. 1. Parliament is Sovereign (it is not) 2. Derogation of your rights by emergency legislation is legal (it is not lawful). 3. That we still have separation of powers (we do not). These three things contravene the common law, custom and the constitution of England.
During the first world war our ancestors stopped fighting and played football on Christmas day. It has fell into folk law and legend. It is true. So who really has the power? We do. Trust your instincts not your government.
Aho Bro 💙
Merry Christ-Mass 🎄🎅🏻🌟💕🥳
Love
Rachel x
Human Rights Act is not as powerful as normal Common Law. It is my belief that the establishment set these things up to trick the public into believinng that they are one and the same. It's all about tricking the public into joindering into Civil Legal / Statute Law / Maritime Law, which is filled with corruption and mob rule fascism.
Thanks. You've clarified a lot for me.
Hi Rachel, A belated happy new year, and I would like to thank you and Dean for this brilliant video explaining Common Law without all the legal jargon. I remember being taught at school, late 50's early 60's, about the Magna Carta, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We even had a visit to Runnymede and it stayed in my memory, so I've often wondered why it's hardly ever mentioned by our politicians and over these past few years I'm realising why. I have on occasion brought it up on social sites, Twitter & Facebook, as I believe we've been betrayed, not least by being signed up to the EU. I can only hope that more people will realise what's happened and more will be done to reinstate our Constitution/Common Law for the good of the country and our people. Best wishes to you both. xx
Great video Rachel! Thanks for breaking it down into something I can share with others as they start to ask questions.
Thank you Rachel and Dean, these points are easy to remember but easy to forget when needed!
Well sine Rachel what a great Christmas present for everyone xx
As my dad used to say to me when I was a kid, "Good show!". I have just barely started upon this spiritual and very practical journey. I've had many friends speak on this; but until I began researching it for myself... I was dubious.
Then, on November 15, 2021... I was attacked by the police and paramedics on my porch after having had too much alcohol; but refusing medical service. I did my best to convey my intentions of non-harm; as I continued to refuse unwanted medical service while being held down and told repeatedly to comply; and if I wouldn't that I would be tased... which I was over and over again.
I woke up in the hospital, only to find that I was now under arrest, and that I was being charged with a felonious intent to harm a peace officer. I was further harassed and eventually plead down to a disturbing the police. Even though there was horrific video body camera footage of what they had done... I was told I only had a 50/50 shot at winning a Trial By Jury; by my public defender.
I am now past all that, off of probation; no longer under any threat to go to prison; but it spurred me into action.... to learn about LAW; BOTH Admiralty and Common Law. Private and Public.
I am building a mentoring business brick by brick; and I've realized that the greatest insurance against something of a repeat nature to me, my clients, or anyone I'll work with... is to learn all I can about the Law.
In time, little by little, I will piece together a gestalt comprehension of this field of study.
DM
Sorry to hear your story however I also was inspired to get interested in common law having experienced an injustice too ~ the Universe works in mysterious ways.
Love
Rachel x
The first thing I saw when I switched on my phone Rachel was this video. What a joy, but, according to Willian Keyte of the Chartist Movement, in a presentation, he gave, the Bill of Rights Act 1668/9, legislated this right away from us. We have to do some serious work to get this right reinstate Rachel. It's so good that you've drawing peoples' attention to this, to release us from tyranny. Love Rog
@Roger. . You can "Believe" anything you wish
I believe (like Thomas Jefferson) that Trial by Jury is the only answer
We must require it, for everything
And I mean everything
@@deansbrodshaw135 If you have entered into a legal court willingly. Then you have also consented to giving up the right to a Trial by a jury of your peers. Unless the magistrate consents to your request. You cannot 'require' anything in a legal court. because you have consented to legal jurisdiction.
@@boptah7489 so to enter a legal court willingly you'd express the statement "I do not consent"? Also, what are the chances of a Judge even listening to a common peasant in such a situation?
@@pmacc3557 If you have entered a legal court willingly....then you have consented. . If you are forced there under 'protest and duress'. Then you need to maintain your position in every interaction you have with everyone present. In practice this means you do all the talking. I have found that they are very willing to listen. . and when you know your position , the arguments are very easy to win. ie " show me the contract " ?
It's an ACT!!!!!.... NOT A LAW
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼Excellent & succinct, ty! Share. Share. Share.
This is great. I would love to hear more.
Hear hear Rachel, heard of this previously but good that you have posted so that more people are aware.
Very nicely explained. Our rights end where another's begin. Therefore the Government's rights end where ours begin. What is even more powerful is going to court as the wo/man who makes a claim against the wo/man who sometimes acts as a police officer (or other 'authority').
Hi Claire, your words, have the flavour of "Karl Lentz" (who has taught so many so much)
Thanks
The Common law approach works very well. I personally have been unlawfully apprehended by armed Police and taken to Magistrates Court. But i refused to give the magistrates jurisdiction and they could not ascertain joinder with any 'consent' that i had allegedly entered into. They then left the court and returned shortly after and tried again. But once you realise you have the power. They soon shut up and want you out of the building ASAP. ( unless they can prove jurisdiction, they have unlawfully apprehended you ) . Do not fall for 1/ Tacit agreement 2/ assumption 3/ presumption 4 / hearsay/. And NEVER sign anything.
Thank you for sharing your experience and showing others that it IS possible.
Dean was explaining to me that the reason the Magistrates leave the room (or ask you to go outside and come back after an hour) is that it resets the entire process.
In other words, you cannot rely on anything you may have said earlier and need to treat everything as if from scratch.
Also, be careful not to sit down (“All rise for the Judge” is a clever way to get your consent) also to say “I leave of my own volition” when they tell you to leave.
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE If you have been taken to a building that some people may call a Court with men bearing arms. And , jurisdiction is not established. then the fanciful procedures that the alleged court may entertain are in effect Moot. . Because they have detained you unlawfully. Police officers wear two hats in Britain. One hat is for the common law and the other is legal. The reason why the police ask you questions on arrest is to try and establish 'joinder' this means you have consented to being a legal entity. . If not. Then common law applies and 'reasonable suspicion' of a common law crime needs to have been evidenced.
Thanks for adding this detail and I wholeheartedly agree.
This is why it is always the best policy to exercise your right to remain silent ~ apart from saying:
“I do not understand”
“I do not consent”
“I am exercising my Right to remain silent”
Rachel x
Would you mind chatting ? I am due in magistrates court next week and I really want some help with out to navigate the system. Thanks
@@user-so1pb8bd8x I don't mind chatting. But if you are going to a magistrates court it will be because of something legal. I do not enter into legal agreements and so cannot really be of much use to you , regarding experience.
So well articulated in this short brief video and well measured in terms of speech's pace this allows anyone to not only understand perfectly but also enable to process what has been said by getting a visual optic of the law: Given the fact that it's a short video I would maybe suggest to create ( personal opinion though! )an animation/illustration video? Why not!
Thank you!
Very well explained, thank you 💜
Absolutely excellent ❤
Thank you for this
CORRECT, CORRECT, CORRECT.... Wake up People....
Bless you Rachel…
Nice.simple .have golden gooden today.😘
Thanks Rachel , this could be a fundamental tool for positive change , IV ordered a booklet " common law training manual for the community" £3.50 , I'm assuming we are allowed to use the existing court buildings and that the roll of the judge becomes to oversee proceedings , the enforcement of punishment would be through the existing services , fascinating stuff , thanks for raising awareness of this ❤️💪✌️
Well that was £3.50 wasted. The authors will be loving the gullibility all the way to the bank. Ker-ching!
Excellent explaining, want to check out Sovereign Project. 😀
Thank you, very helpful. Any idea where I can find equivalent info for Portugal?
Very nice video i recommend another video worth watching called
The Stone of Destiny
💚
Happy Christmas:)
The channel "Justinian Deception" has some great info on this .
@rock, we are aware of "Romley"
The information Romley gives is very valuable, but he never gave a solution for the common man/woman
I appreciate he talked about "estoppel" and return to sender, but when gov choses to ignore these and steamroller on, it's not pretty
Trial by jury is the key protection method we can rely on
Thanks for your input
@@deansbrodshaw135 If you have willingly turned up to court ,then you are accepting the jurisdiction of the court and have therefore accepted the decision of the magistrate whether or not you are entitled to a trial by jury. . When you willingly go to a magistrates court you have consented to giving up certain rights
The solution to all this is to remove yourself from all legal agreements. This means you need God. ( not religion) Because you are then operating under 'natural law' , You mind will say " how can i operate in society without legal agreements ". .....you can't. because now you are not in a society anymore....you are in renaissance.
Bill of rights 1869 still stand today and all public servants are bound to uphold their oath of office.
You’re referring to Legal Statute there!
Rx
@@RachelElnaughLOVE czcams.com/video/diOxwqvXUQU/video.html
@@RachelElnaughLOVE touche
Anything legal will land you in trouble. It is a common law principle that there can be no lawful ' compulsory contract'. Otherwise that would be slavery. . And so. Once you have removed yourself from all legal agreements you are then left with the authority of a 'Jury of your peers'. But you need to require that when you interact with the legal 'persons'. otherwise they try to talk you into accepting their authority.
@@boptah7489 Do you know the difference between legal and lawful?
I have been to several training days on Common Law & I still do not know how to register myself as a Free Woman of The Land. If it is simple to use Common Law, why do we not all withdraw our consent from the slave system and register ourselves as our Common Law Free Sovereign Beings en masse & get on with setting up communities. Where can I find & actually implement information on how to do this. I have 4 days worth of rage & info on how unfairly the system is rigged against us & no practical way to get out of it!! Anyone??
Sounds like someone has taken advantage of your lack of understanding…
Why would you wish to REGIS-ter anything?
REGIS meaning King.
(You have just given away the Rights that you were born with.)
Time to DE-REGIS-ter yourself?
“I do not understand”
“I do not consent”
Love
Rachel x
At Alma, please do not over complicate it, over complication is part of their trap,
Keep it simple
Watch the 1st 60secs of the video, over and over again, and again until the cog clicks into place
Common law, is simple
Thanks
You do not need to register anything under common law. you just need to cancel all legal agreements and allow the Universe to fill in the gaps. . This can be uncomfortable, but it is always miraculous.. This is not a theory. I have experienced it
💜
Brilliant this and shows exactly where our judicial system is/has gone wrong.
"Legalese" is deliberately confusing.
Not that I'm judging of course...just an observation.
(he says in a vain attempt not to get drawn into any 3d thought process and ascend to the 5th dimension before dawn) lol
Just kidding about the last bit...gotta keep our spirits up by all means.
Get me in there now
Does this apply in court. I know someone who tried to use it but wasn't successful. I personally think common law is much more applicable in society over maritime law for eg.
Someone like Rachael who has quite a bit of influence can really get this party started.
Of course not the system doesn't recognize any of this, so what's the point? Where the hell are you going to be able to tried by common law jury? basically it's a joke, totally useless in reality, yes that's a real shame but the truth, unless "impossibly" that's changed, but only God only knows how.
100% rightand she has done, by this video
@honest h, of course it's use is for court,
You will be told (by magistrate/clerk) your not having a trial,
This is only a summary offence blahh blahh blahh
One must be steadfast and keep requiring trial by jury, over and over again and again until they get it,
Hold your position
Hold your position
Hold your position
Do not wavier
@@deansbrodshaw135 has anyone ever used it successfully in court. I haven't found any information on it.
@honest h, yes, there are many that have used trial by jury
I'm no fan of Extinction rebellion, but in 2019 some common people, they had a Criminal damage Case against them, they admitted the criminal damage to a "Shell" building but the 12 jury members found them not guilty
I'm not advocating criminal damage,
I'm simply try to convey the power of the people via Trial by Jury, thru Jury Nullification
Do your due diligence and research the case
Thanks
Can anyone recommend any books on common law worth reading? And any books about the strawman?
Hello , I love your video.
I'm dealing with speeding tickets .
I requested the name of the man who sent it they have not responded ( ignoring the 3 letters I sent).
I got a letter from the police Stating to plead guilty or not guilty. The forms and the envelope came from them but they asked me to fill out and send it to different address the court ( I am not willing to do as they want to contact me) . I'm stuck now any remedy?
"HELL-o" to you too, why are you looking for a remedy?
And you say you've done the "3 letters"
Who told you to do 3 letters?
Perhaps you should ask "he/she" that told you the "3 letters"
Thank you for responding.
To deal with all this there is no single answer. It's all remedies. I'm learning from Bibi Bacchus, John, Petter and others about contract law ( UCC ) .
Hell-O, there, thanks for not answering my question,
We need to get back to common law.
As a law student this is entirely wrong.
Common law refers to law that is derived by judicial decisions. This is different from statutory law that is passed by a legislature. Common law is one type of legal system with the other popular one being civil law. Therefore, there no such thing as accessing it rather you just live in a particular legal system. I’m not sure why the video thinks we live under a maritime system because we are not at sea.
Many cases don’t require wilful intent aka mens rea. These are known as strict liability offences. For example, public nuisance, criminal libel, blasphemous libel, outraging public decency, and criminal contempt of court.
Now you may not agree with the system and you may think it should be changed but you cannot deny that it isn’t the system.
I hope this helps.
Not surprising that you have not been educated properly on Common Law principles ~ the legal training system has absolutely zero incentive to enlighten those obedient solicitors/lawyers who they expect will swear an Oath to uphold the Legal System.
LOVE
Rachel x
So common law came first. So I assume the legal system was developed as per usual by the ruling elite to sway the balance in their favour?
Also, if I am in UK as a tourist and get arrested, can I request common law be applied to me or how does it occur in real life (same question applying to UK citizens)
The Common law applies to tourists also. You just need to make sure that you do not enter into a 'tacit legal agreement' with the Police or other entity. This does not mean you can cause harm or loss to another. Because the police ( or anyone else) can arrest you without any joinder under common law. ie, You do not need to first ascertain a legal agreement before arrest if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime.
In the notes to the video there is a link to an explanation of how Equity Law was created.
It’s a fascinating realisation of how the Aristocracy of the time developed a system to remove the power from the People. Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE They have certainly done a good job. But not for much longer..I trust.
Hello Rachel I have a question I have P.O.A for my mum, I've stood up to family community plus authorities in these recent years upholding my mums wishes in respect of all that's been imposed upon us!
I have also written packs of information sighting credible sources, they the above mentioned in collaboration acted to override our decisions an force their beliefs upon us, I called them out an so they've attacked me / us with an O.P.G investigation.
So here's the question as I'm sighned in to this P.O.A can I still exercise my common law rights?!
It's an interesting case ours happy to make it public as I feel many would benefit to see how this plays out.
Best to you, best to all
@Alf, your words do not resonant with truth, perhaps you are not what you claim to be
Thankyou for the response Dean I was writing to try to convey this situation without getting deleted as that happens most of the time, this is genuine I've written packs to inform people sighting many examples that are proving accurate but family and community and GP Surgery have put me in a court of protection investigations to remove me from careing for our Mum she a Champion of the elderly with nun training in epidemic an pandemic wanted to take her chances an rely on her own immunity big attempts to deny this occurred, we stood up to this hence this attack.
Interestingly each time I've reached out for help I get put in a mental health assessment structure, I volunteer for CHD so I'm reaching out know to Robert.
Sorry you couldn't help though, I also put forward your upload to a lady from Guernsey who's being put through the mill.
Sorry to hear the challenges you are going through Alf
I did not know about the Office of the Public Guardian until looking into it
What evidence do they have to challenge your Power of Attorney? Surely they need evidence that you are not acting in the best interests of your Mother?
Their position will I’m certain be that your Mother has Rights too and may have consented to the Power of Attorney without fully realising the implications.
Love
Rachel x
Thankyou Rachel for taking the time to respond and looking into the OPG.
I just put in a comprehensive reply, but it self deleted, after over an hour of careful thought an writing.
Is there another way I could write to you? If not I'll try again as our situation has I feel much merit for folks to be aware of.
has great relevance to your upload
A Storm is Brewing.
Cheers, again.
Thank you, Rachel, Dean. I have a query, mainly around the comment that the body is your own property - something I absolutely personally.agree with.
Regarding the issue of consent - some of you might be aware of the 'powers' of the Mental Health Act (1983 and its later update) and the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
Under the MHA, people on some sections - mainly s3, can be made to have medications to treat a 'mental disorder.' Also under the MCA, where a person is assessed as lacking capacity to made decision-specific choices; decisions can and are taken by the decision-maker - in the case of health-related decisions, a medic (usually doctor or consultant).
There are some safeguards in place, i.e. an independent mental health advocate, or independent mental capacity advocate. Whilst these latter folk can and do challenge, and ask questions - alongside or, where available, any family/friends/nearest relatives etc.
After all this, my point is whether Common Law is absolute? It can be trumped by legislation and two specific Acts. I don't necessarily like or agree with what underpins those Acts - they do apply in certain circumstances. I am also wondering what else I/we may not know, and whether there are other occasions whereby Common Law may be trumped - beyond the example cited in the video (harm to another). What's interesting is the question of whether some medications can and do cause harm? And if this is so.. the decision makers, whatever their intention, appears to 'lawfully' take the decision out of people's hands.
Thoughts/knowledge, please, any of you? 💓x💓
xx
@jb, the simple answer to your many questions are "What would a jury of 12 decide"
And more complex answer
You are free to agree to all that you wish (either knowingly or Unknowingly)
Example
A man walks into a hospital with a broken arm
The said man, is consenting to
A - be examined
B - Receiving treatment once he's been examined
Why?
Because he walked into the hospital of his own "Free-will"
And after that, the hospital works on "Presumptions"
On and on and on those Presumptions go, until they might give you enough treatment to kill you
Thanks
Hi J Br
Well worth checking out Brian Smith (he often appears on ‘The People Speak Out’ zoom calls and comments on ‘RachelSpeaksOut’)
He was sectioned and uploaded several CZcams videos from the centre he was placed in.
He used a lawyer to get himself out in the end (so it is possible).
If I were in that position I would keep stating “I do not understand” “I do not consent” and “I am exercising my right to remain silent” ~ and not go into any kind of trauma response (fight/flight/freeze).
In other words, I would deprive the ‘Authorities’ of any evidence to justify their actions.
Rachel x
Thanks for contributions. Yeah, people can and definitely more often than not get out, when a section is relinquished. What happens during that time is when someone can be made to have 'treatment' including antipsychotics, ECT etc. When one is detained under the MHA, leave - escorted or otherwise - is down to the team.
What about people who have dementia, and have nobody to represent them, apart from, say an IMHA and/or IMCA? How would people under such circumstances physically leave environments such as hospitals and 'care' homes? The balance of probability is that this is highly unlikely, if not, scarcely possible. Who is going to support accessing jury trial, or requesting same for/with/on behalf of that person? It is not in the remit of say, an Independent Mental Health Advocate, or an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate, as those roles are clearly defined.
If we were to strip back everything and state that we essentially are the Divine personified; all well and good. At the same time, I know that 1000s of people are detained under the MHA, and affected by the MCA; just in the same way that people are impacted by being on a deprivation of liberty (including certain safeguards) in 'care' homes, and (usually) very briefly in hospitals - how on earth 😉 are people going to protect their bodies, and maintain/improve (wholistic) wellbeing in a *PRACTICAL* sense?
I'd love to hear more knowledge,.experience of this and actual concrete solutions to this very real (as much as 'reality' exists on this plane and dimension) situation.
With my challenging peace - likely contradiction in terms 🤔🤭 x💓x
Power of Health Attorney ? Rx
@@RachelElnaughLOVE 2023/01/05 Last video..
14FBG07 Bernard yt
BUT IF YOU HAVENT INJURED ANYONE HOW WOULD THEY GET JURISDICTION TO EVEN HEAR THE CASE
Hi Rachel I have court this month 23rd any chance Dean could help me? I rather discuss privately. Kind regards
@Lion of E, have you caused Harm, injury or loss to your fellow man woman, if yes, then you should sort it out with them, put right, the wrong you have caused,
If you have not caused Harm, injury or loss to your fellow man woman, and it's a gov/fictional entity that is demanding something of thee then, it's possible.
So please answer the above question, honestly please
As a very small minority have ulterior motives, than when they initially say.
Thanks
@@deansbrodshaw135 Hi Dean thank you for your reply. No I have caused no harm, injury or loss to anyone. It is statute legislation.
@LofE, please view/Look at the "John Timbrell" comments, to find the info, your seeking
Thanks
@@deansbrodshaw135 Hi Dean. Thank you for the information I will definitely check it out.
Kind regards loe
@loe, did you manage to find the JT comments, and in there the info you asked for
Thanks
I agree - we do have a right to a trial by jury. The problem is that the current system is denying us our right to a trial by jury in some cases - summary only offences (and most civil cases). "They" will say that these can only be tried in the Magistrates' Court. we do need to get enough people educated in order that the people start demanding trial by jury and, where it is being denied, asking why that is, and stating that this is unconstitutional. At present, if you were do require a trial by jury in the magistrates' court in relation to a summary only offence, the magistrates would probably direct a not guilty plea and list the matter for a summary trial. Of course for indictable only offences you would (under current system, as under the common law) be entitled to a trial by jury and for an either way offence - you have the right to elect a trial by jury. Depending on what you find yourself at the police station for, I would not agree that it is blanket best advice to maintain your right to silence - the jury you appear before might be less inclined to believe you at trial if you have not put forward your defence when questioned. Also, depending on what you have been arrested for, it may be wise to exercise your right to legal advice - solicitors do not swear an oath to the bar, and can be invaluable. They do have certain duties to the court (such as not to mislead or lie to the court, and they would have to withdraw from the case if you were to insist on lying to the court), but they should be acting in your best interests. However, they will probably not agree that it is your right to have a trial by jury in all cases, because they are not taught that. Also, in the current system, though not at common law, the state of mind necessary for different offences is not as straightforward as stated here. I set all this out because, just stating that you require a trial by jury in our current system will not necessarily get you what you require - not until such time as a critical mass of people understand our constitution and start demanding that it is upheld. here is a very useful essay which sets out how our common law constitution was set up to work. www.newchartistmovement.org.uk/welcome/statement-on-the-constitution
I will leave Dean to reply 💙
@@RachelElnaughLOVE great - I'm really interested - this is the approach I have been hoping people would start taking x
Hi Weazel, This video is simply to highlight the basic points,
The foundational pins
In a short video, we can only do so much
And this video, is to get the word out,
Can we all please share and spread the word on the simple Truth
Stand together, not divided
And "Summary Offence" is just that a "Summary"
What do you get at the end of a 50+ page document A "Summary"
A Summary is a very brief gloss over the content
The Summary does not affect the content
Meaning - All the Content has been established
Meaning - the Facts
You see a "Summary Hearing/Offence" is not a Trial of the "Facts" it's simply a hearing on how the law/Statute/punishment is going to be applied
Meaning - The Facts have already been established, once you have been "Charged"
The word "Charge" is an "After the Fact" event/outcome
You receive a Charge when you eat food in a restaurant
You receive a Charge when you have used a service
(What is the Charge)
You see, it used to be that someone would be the "Accused" only
"Bring in the Accused" they used to say
Anyway,
People may choose to not consent to the summary offence/hearing and demand/require a Trial by Jury
People may also keep on demanding/requiring Trial by Jury, even if they are obstructed
And keep on demanding
Until they/gov system finally get it
Thanks for your passion
@@deansbrodshaw135 Hi Dean, thanks for your reply. I agree, of course, it is useful to have a short, punchy video to get the word out. I love the approach of people requiring a trial by jury, but people appearing before the existing courts as defendants need to be aware of what they may be getting themselves into if they take this stance. Some very serious, and some imprisonable offences come before the Magistrates’ Court as ‘summary only’ offences under the current regime. If a defendant actually has a defence to put forward at summary trial and they refuse to participate in such a trial and, instead, demand a trial by jury, they may very well be convicted. If they choose to go down this route, in full knowledge, then that is one thing, but to be led to do this without full knowledge of the consequences is quite another.
I appreciate what you say in regards to the language … summary, charge etc - but trials in the Magistrates’ Courts are not foregone conclusions without consideration of evidence. They are held with a proper process and consideration of evidence, chance to cross-examine witnesses, etc etc…. I am not saying this is proper under the constitution, but it is not a kangaroo court, either…. And people need to be aware of this.
Absolutely people can stand up and demand their right to trial by jury, even when they are obstructed - but they need to understand the potential consequences of so doing…. In some cases this could be really serious for them. We need to be educating the public (including those involved in the current justice system) about the true nature of the constitution, but with an eye on the fact that most of the public, and those in the legal profession, believe the current system to be legitimate. Whilst the current system has the monopoly on violence, supported by the masses, we need to tread carefully,
Hi Weasel, This is a snippet from your last message
Hi Dean, thanks for your reply. I agree, of course, it is useful to have a short, punchy video to get the word out. I love the approach of people requiring a trial by jury, but
Do you see the word "But"
The word "But" cancel's out all the words prior to the word "But"
So what you are actually saying (in fact)
You do not believe that "Trial by Jury" is the proper/correct/only method we must be tried
Because every word after the "But" confirms that you do not.
Please do not spread fear, there is far to much of that going around
And perhaps you should do a video on what you believe to be the correct way
But I'm staying with "Thomas Jefferson"
Why, because it's the "Only" method "Ever" created to which a government can be held to its Constitution
Thanks
How can I contact you?
@Emna T, why do you wish to contact someone?
@@deansbrodshaw135 What's it got to do with you??
@Emna, lol your funny, (cr..sb..k.i.n) lol
@@deansbrodshaw135 Dean, You're so funny, ( nosey c-n-) lol...
Hi Emma
I assume you wish to make contact with Dean?
Rachel x
God law
So are we all just going to ignore the fact that involuntary manslaughter is killing someone without "willful intent" so under the logic of this video isn't a crime when we all know that it is.
Also under common law assault & battery can be reckless, it doesn't have to be intentional. Lastly it's not only "harm, injury and loss" you missed out "defraud" as well as risk of and intent to do so.
You clearly do not comprehend the difference between Murder and manslaughter
An accident and intentional
I can take a Horse to water, but I carnt make it drink
@@deansbrodshaw135 Murder is killing done with intent, wether to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm.
Manslaughter (involuntary) is killing by recklessness or gross negligence, where there is not necessarily any intent to harm anyone. I think I know what the difference is.
to defraud is to intentional cause loss to another party. . ' mens rea'.
@@boptah7489 "Mens rea" is latin it literally means "guilty mind".
@@jackjackson2844 Yes. Guilty mind is what courts try to establish or not to determine you intent. Even if you do not have a guilty mind, the fact that a third party was injured shows a lack of awareness of your actions and so you may have not shown 'due consideration' to your fellow man. . Which may also be criminal. ie. A nurse may give an injection to a patient to prevent a flu like disease. . She may not have intended to kill them, but the fact that she gave a potentially poisonous jab makes her complicit potentially because of her lack of 'due diligence'.
Sorry ..I’m gonna pick you up on a few things..it’s no harm , no loss or injury to man / women or property!…there also has to be a victim or injured party to even give doubt to an intended or accidental injury or harm,!?!!…never say to any maritime law officer, police, judge or any such person or persons..that you don’t understand ..you must never use the word UNDERSTAND!!.you can say I don’t comprehend , if you really don’t understand…or you say I do not stand under you and I am not making joinder with you..❤
@pippe, You clearly have not been in Court much pippe,
You say all the gobble-de-gook you like,
Like, "inner-stand" or upper-stand" or "stand-under"
The word "Understand" means 2 separate things in 1,
Do as you wish, peppa
@@deansbrodshaw135 well..!!..who needs to go to a maritime fake court.?..stay well clear..no justice in one of those ..they all belong to the same club..🤔☹️…there are many people who are teaching the common law ..I think it’s truly wonderful that this true custom law will once again prevail..the monarch failed her people and broke her oath to uphold this law..many good teachers of this law will be heading to the courts this year and will hopefully bring the maritime law to its knees..I myself have been learning and still have more to learn..putting all these crown club members on Notice of lawful decent including the councils who Weald there fake authority on the people for the un obligated payment of council tax while we all fund there huge wage and pensions and redundancies..My recall wasn’t to cause offence ..if you are going to do a vid like this to people who are completely new ..wording in law is so important as you know…🙏🏻..
“I do not understand” means precisely that: I do not stand under you.
“I require a Trial by Jury” I.e. not a summary hearing by a Magistrate !!!
I am told there is no common law in Scotland? Surely not?
@Magic, as far as I'm aware, the "Common Law"
Meaning "Anglo Saxon" Common Law did not cross the boarder into Scotland
The Anglo Saxon Common Law is where we get our customry "Trial's" from
(Trial by fire)
(Trial by Water)
(Trial by Jury)
Not the Legal System Common law, that is very different
It's only common to them, (gov/solicitors etc)
Why are you using The Electoral Commission with your complaints about The freedom Alliance and not requesting a trial by jury to deal with this?
@Martin, Why are you hijacking this space, to air your ill will, about a Freedom Alliance topic, I'm sure, Freedom Alliance have a telegram group
Don't they?
@@deansbrodshaw135 ,Why are you hijacking this space, to air your ill will, about a Freedom Alliance topic, I'm sure, Freedom Alliance have a telegram group Don't they?
I am not "hijacking this space to air my ill will about a Freedom of Alliance topic."
They are intertwined in so far as Rachel Elnaugh in her newsletter states
"Secondly, my partner Dean and I co-created this simple little guide to Common Law" she further states "Having experienced the absolute injustice of the 'maritime' legal system (which plays a big part in locking down the false matrix via creating FEAR of the "Authorities") I so wish I had known my Common Law Rights back then"
However Rachel Elnaugh states with regard to the Freedom Alliance Party that she is taking her complaints to the Electoral Commission. A body formed under statute in the "maritime" legal system.
I am pointing out the anomaly of on the one hand decrying "the maritime" legal system but then using it. If you are a common law purist and endorse it you stick to it whatever the consequences.
Common law emanates from Natural Law and I would urge anyone who is looking to understand common law to first gain an understanding of natural law. The best introduction that I can refer to is that by Mark Passio however it is eight hours long not five minutes. Within his lecture also please pay attention to his observations of the New Age movement.
I have fought for the freedom of the individual all my adult life.
I joined The freedom Alliance Party as a platform to this end in local council elections.
I have no personal connections to any of the past members or present members.
I have no "ill will" as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary.
I have a good working knowledge of "the maritime" legal system and there are many and varied courses out there on common law.
Here I am merely questioning why those who fully endorse common law do not use it when they are in a situation that they say requires an investigation in law.
@@martingodden613
I had a similar conversation with Dean of Buxton (I often play Devil’s Advocate and question him on Common Law) ~ well, if I ‘Do Not Understand’ then if I was, say, attacked would I call 999 ?
His answer was absolutely YES
The System is paid for by you, including The Police. If there is a problem then why not use it?
However, if you are ACCUSED of a crime then you are Innocent Until Proven Guilty ~ and you have the RIGHT to a Trial by Jury.
Rachel x
PS I am not the Enemy !!!
@@RachelElnaughLOVE ❤️
We are not "born with almost unlimited rights". We are 'born' helpless babes, I respect you but I am going to have my say on this, right or wrong. Sending love, Merry Christmas,
I would say they are referring to the legal/lawful personality as opposed to the physical. We are born with Unalienable rights (which we don't aquire as we get older).
But yh I guess the physical body is fairly helpless apart from having a capacity to learn and natural instincts to eat, breath, cry etc
As a Mum of 5 sons
I’d say babies are tremendously powerful little creatures !!! 😍
Able to command attention and get their own way in every situation ☺️
Merry Christ-Mass
Rachel x
@@olivermcleod5326 I have a lot to say but let us enjoy this day. Sending love to you Oliver,
@@hubrisnaut you too, have a good day.
Didn't mean to offend, just expressing my opinion too, I thought you had some valid points lol
you have all of the rights that God has. But to exercise those rights you need to intentionally move towards God. . 'Legal' means " against Gods law". .
Trouble is that most of the legal system, practitioners and various vested interests do not agree with this.
Of course they don’t! They’ve sworn an Oath to the Bar
Rx
This is NOT common law and the things described here could never function as law in any meaningful sense. As ethical principals they are fine, but this video is misinformation.
I beg to differ 💛🩵💚
So do you say i do not understand i do not consent thou shall speak like a normal person common law speak common sense though shall put that in his pipe and smoke it i didn't understand people dont talk like that please remake and explain in normal wording
It’s a pattern-interrupt Richard
Common Law is a mindset. Once the penny drops your life transforms…
For starters, you don’t take orders from anyone !!!
LOVE
Rachel x
Error in calling "legal statute" "the Law". They are not the same, and are usually in opposition. Otherwise, great video. "Thou HAST" and "Thou CANST", by the way.
I had a little disagreement with Dean over that slide! Thank you for echoing me 😃
Rachel x
@Roy + Rach, lol it's funny,
An "Act of Statute" can be "Law" as long as the "People" uphold it
That's why all of these hundreds/thousands of statutes are still there because the people (in their ignorance) are unwittingly upholding said statutes and as long as they do, uphold them, it is law,
Because it has the legitimatcy/backing of the people,
They've Consent'd to it, so it is their law
(Just like when you Consent to a Contract, that becomes Your individual Law)
(But there is a remedy, and that's 12 jury members, who uphold or destroy the written Law/Statue as they decide their Verdict)
Thanks for your passion
@@deansbrodshaw135 For any statute to become Law, it requires signed acceptance by each to whom it applies. This standard is NEVER met.
Hi ARoy, whilst your statement would seem correct to most common people (which I like by the way)
Your statement is not quite correct,
There is "No" requirement for a signed bit of paper/contract/agreement
A clear example to demonstrate this -
A man walks into a Restaurant (it's clearly a restaurant), and orders some food (fish + chips), the waiter/ress confirms said order, and walks away into the Kitchen,
10 mins later, the same waiter/ress, brings out the ordered food (fish + chips) and hands over to the man (who ordered the food)
The man eats the food, and is very satisfied
Now,
Neither the man, nor the waiter/ress "Signed" a peace
But a Valid/Enforceable agreement/contract was formed (but no signatures)
Agreement/Contract (s)/Consent does Not need to be in writing, it can be "Verbal", Silence, "Action" or inaction (beware of their tricks, these are but a few)
And a further question to this is "Restaurant" thing is -
When was the agreement/contract instantly formed?
When?
Please comment
Thanks for your passion
@@deansbrodshaw135 Best we agree to disagree.
I never had justice, nor natural law or common law in uk. Trot harm I still going though loss harm
The UK is not obligated to operate under the Common law. The UK is a legal entity and so is therefore a Corporation. This means it is a fiction and does not exist anywhere outside of people minds.
I would like to contact you to share my experience and exchange views. I actually have experience of a Judge stating in court to me, "We do not recognise the common law in this court". Her statement was correct in practice because I had already contracted with them by giving them my name which meant that I had to abide by their rules. Of course the UK Supreme court does sometimes abide by common law such as in the Jalloh case but they hide their rulings by using stated cases which themselves are based on common law. Your statement that it needs the people to wake up and use the common law is precisely correct but that is where the flaw lies. The people are so mind programmed or cowardly that they will not use the common law. That is why a huge part of taxes goes to Ukraine because the British people do not know of the two Minx agreements made with Russia. Even Angela Merkel explained before Christmas that we had no intention of keeping to the agreement. Rachel. Who is the Dean od Buxton?? Can I contact you through him.
@John T, I'm with you in the contract stuff,
But please, view the video and listen, extremely carefully,
One enters the court room and says just a few simple lines,
Which are in the video
If one strays from these lines, and has a conversation with the Actors, then you are f.h.c.ked
View the video again and again and again, till you get it,
It's very simple
Thanks
He’s not actually ‘The ‘Dean of Buxton’ !!!
You can email him via deansbrodshaw@gmail.com
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE Thank you Rachel.I'll be in touch.
I have discovered over a period of 20 years that the only way through this is to remove all legal agreements from your life. This opens many many doors , just as it closes many also. .
@@boptah7489 If you apply logic to your first statement you could not exist. I expect if you are British, that you have a National insurance number which the state uses to give you certain benefits. The downside in this is that your parents gave away your rights as a living wo/man. This is necessary to the state, because the state is a dead thing, a corporation and the common law states that all parties in a case must be equal. So all statutes, unless they confirm common law, can in theory be challenged. The state can 'get away' with this con in practice because the living people accept pensions and medical treatment. In return you pay them taxes which of course the 'directors' off the corporation that you now as the state, cream off huge sums to enhance their life styles.
If you understand this you can sometimes get justice in their courts, but because you will not get any support from your fellow men, who choose to accept the benefits that the state bribes them with, you have to choose the way that you fight back very carefully. I have communicated with the "the Dean of Buxton". It is clear to me that he has no practical experience of putting common law into practice. Just one example of how you have to be careful. I use the common law to refuse to pay council tax but I do register my vehicle because the state using their soldiers that you know as police officers, (not constables), use force to take my vehicle from me. I expect that he taxes his car and pays his council tax.
You need to realise that above all laws is one. Might is right. If you don't believe me examine how the Romans used force to take over this country and force their laws on us. So please learn the common law and use your brain as to the appropriate time to use it. People like the "Dean of Buxton" give very dangerous advice if you want to keep some freedoms.
Will this still stand in the coming new world order?
Have you consented to this ‘New World Order’ that you speak of?
What ‘authority’ does it hold over you?
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE no Rachel I've not consented to the NWO but the WEF are planning horrendous things. I'm hoping for a Way out. X
That is why it is important that we stand in our power and say NO we do not consent.
It has all been done via obedient consent thus far.
Silence is also a form of consent.
Rachel x
Of all the absolute drivel published on CZcams about common law this has to be the most unsophisticated and halfwitted. At least most FOTL posters make some kind of effort to base their nonsense on something.
Depressing I know for those heavily invested in the idea that all things legal have to be complex !!!
LOVE
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE Well I suppose life is much simpler if one merely makes sweeping statements of purported facts without even trying to provide any justification for why you believe such statements are true.
There's no "love" in trying to fill people's heads full of nonsense which, if acted upon, could cause them loss or harm.
NOT acting upon this very simple advice is what causes people harm… Inadvertently giving their power away to external authorities being a very good example.
LOVE (Liberation Opportunity Vitality Empowerment)
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVE It's not advice, it's just sweeping baseless assertions as to what people's rights are mixed with a load of pseudo-religious natural law concepts and nothing whatsoever to do with common law.
So explain to me, if this "advice" is followed, how are the outcomes different to those experienced by those who do not follow your "advice"?
@@RachelElnaughLOVE Law has to be defined and agreed - there is no mention here of what penalties should be imposed for the breaking of these laws. Neither is there a definition of 'harm'. Some peole think being gay is harmful and school children should not be taught about gayness as this will 'harm' them. Do YOU think being gay is harmful? Even if you don't there are plenty of people who do - and of course we then need to protect gay men and women and teens from this biggotry. However, unless you can agree on 'harm' this is impossible with the word salad you have concocted here.
Yeeaaah, good luck with that in the courts. Please don't try it, it doesn't work.
@John... It's been tried and tested, by myself and many others
Do your due diligence before confirming
(Extinction rebellion 2019, and the Shell Criminal damage case)
But you probably won't, cos you know it all already (right)
@@deansbrodshaw135 free man on the land became popular ( again) 20 odd years ago, around the time of your example, it did confuse a few magistrates but they soon got wise to it.
If you're ever in court try using the Freeman of the law excuse, please try it and see how far you get.
@John, just as I previously stated,
You can not see the wood because of the forest
I pitty your mental blockage,
This is not Freeman on the land stuff,
But your mind is suffering from cognitive dissonance
O well, maybe one day, you will break free of your mental shackles
Thanks
Contract excuse is that they use to go around the Constitution to ignore your request.
@Tyron, Require it and see,
Or not, as you probably know it all already (right)
please use your search bar to confirm and verify the following. This may come as a bit of a shock for some. so here goes,,,,,,, Common Law - Capitus Diminutio Minima (first letter Capitalised) -= The British Monarchy Common Law LEGAL System - it's not The law of the Land at all because it is written in Capitus Diminutio Minima -Legal terms and it's The Contractual Policy of the Estate (Land) a Legal Term, which means, Property. so if people want to go on being their Roman Contractual Slave, all they need to do is go on ignorantly believing they have rights that don't exist, that need laws that cannot exist, to protect them. Rights are British Monarchy Holy Roman Voluntary Contractual Liberties - the exact opposite of freedom. Laws, are British Monarchy Voluntary Contractual Policy in Military Service to The Vatican (worldwide already) look ---> definition - Legal - Constitutor - ''one who agrees by way of a simple pact to pay the debt of another, and this is always a principle obligation''. we got scammed, everywhere! look at this The Treaty of Peace - Paris 1763 -1783 of The Holy Roman empire. i apologise if this information is troubling for those who have been inadvertently worshiping THE SCAM of British Monarchy Worldwide Voluntary Contractual Liberty, and all the while thinking it is freedom. this information is sourced from marc douglas vogt the author of the four horsemen of THE SCAM. i hope it brings some clarity.
@Shaun, these things are well known (that you point out), but you need a constant factor, that factor is "Trial by Jury"
Maybe you think your smarter than Thomas Jefferson (I don't know)
Anyone who says Common Law exists is mistaken, deluded or lying because it cannot exist
men (selected politicians) cannot write laws, because that is impossible
they can only write British Monarchy
/Holy Roman /Voluntary/Constitutional/ Contractual Slave Policy in Military Service to the Vatican
czcams.com/video/8_KP0OeC5MQ/video.html
Founding Fathers ???
Or Federal Freemasons / British Qui Tam Attorneys.
The Amreican Constitution is a Vatican Debt Contract Scam just like every other Constitution in the already One World System
It is not the most important document in human freedom at all, that is pure Roman slave programming.
I made no reference to your competency or lack of such a thing,
I do however know within seconds wether people are still totally brainwashed and worshiping The Scam by their inability to differentiate English word meanings and Contractual Terms of Writ in World Federal Commerce /Legalese they cannot comprehend the meaning of.
Hi Shaun
I feel you may have misunderstood the video.
Essentially, in the event of a dispute, The People decide.
Rachel
" Common law" was established before the monarchy. But you of course have the right to 'stand under' the definition of your choice. . But , that will have consequences. . ' British Common law ' is not the same as the Common law of these islands historically known as Britain. The definition you have supplied is the definition used by the BAR association ( British Accreditation Registry ) This association is the source of legal authority and so is to be avoided at all costs.
Hilarious rubbish
hi Rachel. My name is Jacek and I come from Poland. Last week, a uniformed corporation called the Police attacked my brother from Poland in Walsall. Ignoring all documents and explanations, they impounded his car and are threatening to lose it. We need your help, friends. The pressure we should put on this corporation should restore the right to live, breathe and use the road as a human traveler. We should act quite efficiently and we are planning a happening this weekend. Will you help?
The Representation of the People Act and appearing on the electoral register makes people persons.
That's why they become subject to statute and legislation.
If people answer to the name of the person is it sufficient to say I do not consent?
@Coj, please make your question clear, (what exactly are you asking, it's unclear)
Thanks
It's a rhetorical question.
If you answer to the name of the person created by the Representation of the People Act, is it sufficient to simply say I do not consent in order to not be governed by Statute and Legislation?
@@Coj0nes01 It is not enough to just say " I do not consent". You need to be in a position where you have not consented to any legal agreement. ie, no NI number, passport, bank account, driver license. etc.
To, coj, that depends on
1 - What your not consenting to, (you carnt not consent to being tried, if you have caused Harm, injury or loss)
2 - Has your consent been gained previously (did/do you have a Solicitor represent "YOU")
3 - Are you having a conversation with them in Court (if Yes, then you can "Understand" them)
4 - Are/Have you been directed by them/judge/Magistrate, in the court room ("Sit down" state's the Judge, did you sit down, like a good little doggy)
Stand firm, hold your position
Keep it simple, and stick to your guns
Thanks
@@deansbrodshaw135 You can not consent to being tried. If the court is a legal court. To be in a legal court requires consent
You have consented if
1/ you have legal joinder with the state.
2/ you willingly go to the legal court
3/ you tacitaly agree to being tried at a legal court.
Besides not having any legal joinder. the 4 traps are
1/ assumption
2/ presumption
3/ tacit agreement
4/ hearsay.
It is best not to answer any questions before arrest by saying " i am not interested in answering any questions " . If it is a legal matter.
If you are arrested for a common law offence it is important to require a jury of your peers and not have any representation from a legal entity. And not fall into any of the 4 traps.
Thank you!