Constitutional Law cannot be usurped by Government.

a reply to: kwakakev

as an Aussie you can't do a thing really, but we've removed other Carolean upstarts.. its all part of the process when they overstep the mark its why most thought Charles would adopt the safer moniker of George when he finally ascended the throne.

the Carolean ages are linked with Christian prophecies and bring serious bad luck for the holder of the crown.

in terms of the uk there is a hierarchy of legal rights that are hard to undo..

the top most tier or the rights that are time out of mind.. like the city of London, the twelve etc these date from edward the confessor, pre Norman invasion (1042)

with the Normans we got the next tier which is canon law (1066) as this was the only way Lanfranc could get the blessings of Rome for the invasion..

the next comes common/Westminster law (1198) the Statute of Westminster of 1275 placed this 3rd in retrospect to usurp admiralty law implemented by Helen of Aquitaine acting as regent while richard1 was on the crusades,
then comes admiralty law

Admiralty law was brought to England be Helen of Aquitaine while she acted as regent of England when Richard the lion heart was on the 3rd crusade..

when you understand the tiers its impossible to see the groups that are time out of mine giving up their place to be subjects of Rome/Europe/wef unless they run it all as the top tier..

For Americans Tom Paine was a member of one such group who specialised in laws "the twelve" which was made up of the companions, these are some of the richest and most powerful houses in the last 1000 years of world history.. no one ever questions why such a broke commoner was a member of the twelve alongside the likes of the commander of all British troops in the Americas at that time, and houses where the royal Stuarts are the junior line..

a reply to: anonentity

"It also must be mentioned that everyone, even in a magistrates court has the right to a jury trial."

That is nonsense, I'm afraid.

Vast majority of offences are Summary only and are therefore tried by Magistrates only, no jury.

Jury trials are in Either Way cases in our Crown Courts.

And Indictable only offences, I should add.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

not quite true either.

Right to a Jury Trial

Either way offences can be tried either in the Crown Court or in the Magistrates’ Court. Sometimes, the magistrates decide to send the case to Crown Court for jury trial. In other cases, the defendant can choose to be tried by jury in the Crown Court. The potential benefit to the accused opting for jury trial is that it is considered less likely to be convicted by a jury than in the Magistrates’ Court. On the other hand, a Crown Court trial is more stressful. It is a decision to be made on the circumstances of the defendant and the case.

a reply to: nickyw

Yes, that is for Either Way cases, not Summary Only ones.

Like I said.


www.defence-barrister.co.uk...#:~:text=The%20magistrates'%20court%20will%20decide,to%20choose%20trial%20by%20jury.

originally posted by: musicismagic
a reply to: anonentity

Thank you very much for posting that link.

I left the country years ago that I was born in and came to another country that is is and was and still is I suppose I should say influenced by a somewhat tamed communism type of ruling over its people here.
People have heard that this country that I live in now is a free country but that's not really true at all it's very well limited to your freedom of actually let's start with just traveling and well not actually traveling also but moving from one place to another.
If you're moving to another city or what they call a prefecture you're going to have to to have your tax records and you have to bring to the office of the new prefecture that you moving into it gets very complicated and also the the address has to be changed and it has to be changed within a certain amount of time and you have to register with the city you got to register with the community it's really not a free society.

I'm not seeing any difference to the US laws. You have to change your drivers license, insurance, voter registration, forwarding address, etc. within a specific time period. Most, if not all countries track their citizens moves with a detailed paper trail.

A right is only good if it's exersized. Otherwise it doesn't exist. Also, no matter what anything says, it's about perception not about fact or constitutional law. Although there should be inalienable rights.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

again not quite the full situation, summary cases where police or magistrates convict only happen because people let them happen, there is always another route to other courts.. which is what most activists use to delay or overturn what would be summary convictions.

equally it prevents activist police or magistrates making a mockery of the law, notably seen with the non crime hate crime convictions.. and the way the police have undermined themselves on twitter.. otherwise we'll start seeing people convicted of singing tom jones songs or calling a trans rapist a he..

its also why the legal structure can't be undermined..

a reply to: nickyw

OK. Didn't read your own link?

"In practice, not every defendant has the right to a jury trial. For instance, individuals charged with minor offences are tried by magistrates."

As in Summary Only offences.

I do actually prosecute cases in both Courts, but hey, there you go.

a reply to: nickyw

Singing Tom Jones songs is not a criminal offence.

The Welsh Rugby Union banned the playing of Delilah at their stadium.

They can't criminalise it.

*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC

a reply to: nickyw

"Again not quite the full situation, summary cases where police or magistrates convict only happen because people let them happen, there is always another route to other courts.. which is what most activists use to delay or overturn what would be summary convictions."

No. Summary cases are dealt with by Magistrates only here.

That's why they are called "Summary".

Magistrates can convict, not Police.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

"A right is only good if it's exersized. Otherwise it doesn't exist."

What right are you speaking about?