Reproduced here is the story of a day in court that happened yesterday… the courts appear to be completely unable to address the workings of their own rules and for the most part can only act against those who stand up to them by ploughing on in the old ways they are familiar with. It is time we educated ALL our brothers and sisters who may be appearing at some de facto courts behest, it is time we showed them we will no longer put up with their railroading innocent people and mugging them of their hard earned cash and freedom…brothers and sisters it is time for us to unite and proclaim these theives for what they are con artists and tricksters hiding behind the FORCE of their bully boys the police and they, the police, should hang their heads in shame at the complete abuse of their sworn oaths these corporate tricksters are putting them to!
I leave you to the words of an eye witness, no names have been changed, for it is not we who wish to hide our dealings but they!…enjoy…
Sovererign Day Out with Nala and the sham that is our Court System!
9th February 2011
Yesterday 10 Sovereigns, including myself, accompanied our fellow Sovereign Nala to Justice of the Peace Court in Irvine. Nala was invited to their place of business to discuss what they deemed to be traffic offences, and arrived honourably on time for the appointment they offered him. What follows is an account of the farce that transpired there. As you read, I am sure you will agree that these Courts are in no way serving Justice on the people of this Country.
This Court called 3 and 4 people at the same time to enter the Court room to do business, therefore Nala was called with a few others. We went through into the Court and took our seats as observers in the public gallery. Nala stood by the door, inside the court, and was told to take a seat. He replied he was happy to stand. The police officer in the Court then again told Nala to sit. He asked the Officer if that was an order or a request. This same conversation was repeated several times. The Police Officer did not comment further on the seating arrangement and the Court Officials did not intervene further on the matter. Nala stated he was the 3rd party litigant for the person on the paperwork, Mr Alan Houston. He was told to wait outside the Court and the case would be called again later. 10 Sovereigns and Nala left the court and returned to the waiting room. Presumably the Court continued business with the other men called. When their business was complete with the others, they again called Nalas case. This time the Court was empty of all other observers from the public.
Again they asked who he was and again he stated he was the 3rd party litigant for the person on the paperwork. They directed him to stand in the dock, to which he refused, as he was not the person on their paperwork, but was a 3rd party agent. They asked if he was a lawyer, he replied he was not a trained lawyer in their system and again stated who he was and why he was there. They asked if he was the person named on the paperwork. He replied no, the person on the paperwork is a legal corporate entity.
Obvious confusion began to appear in the Court team , including the 3 JP’s who sat on the bench. Nala tried to help them in their confusion by defining ‘person’ as per Blacks Law Dictionary. However it soon became apparent that they were not familiar with the legal terms with which they use everyday and were therefore becoming visibly uncomfortable. They tried to combat their frustration by insisting he was a ‘person’ and looking helplessly at each other, not knowing where to go with this ‘person’ who was bursting their bubble and daring to challenge them.
A gasp of disbelief came from a fellow Sovereign in the gallery. He was told to be quiet by the Police Officer and silence was again established in the Court. There then followed a brief discussion on whether Nala had any right to represent Mr Houston, and again the Court team were chasing their own tails, fraught by the fact they could not establish jurisdiction and had no clue of the law or what was going on here. At this point the Clerk directed the JP to clear the Court due to ‘all the noise’, saying they would call the case again and it would resume in a ‘closed court’. A ripple of disbelief went through the Sovereigns as we were led out.
As we objected to being ushered from the Court, the JP called an adjournment , while Nala made an objection to their operation. He was told his case would be called again and to wait outside. He insisted the Court allow him lay advisors as was his right. They refused saying he should have got acceptance on that matter before the case began. So off we all trotted back to waiting room,with Nala, where we were left for some considerable time. However it became apparent the reason for this delay was to have extra Police brought into the court. 3 vans drew up at the court, with additional police officers to take up station within the building. Undeterred we remained in the waiting room.
For the 3rd time the case was called.
Nala, along with the 10 Sovereigns returned to the Court room only to find the Police blocking the entry. They told Nala only he could enter the Court and he refused to so on the claim they were operating a star chamber. He reiterated he was not going in with no witnesses and what they were trying to do was illegal. At this point we heard a Court Official shouting from beyond the door ‘right, thats it, this case is not being called’ At that point we were all, including Nala, told to leave the building.
The wh*** fiasco of the Court room farce seems apt to fit in their ‘Acts’. The ‘Act ors’ alias Court officials were making up their own rules/scripts as they were going along. It was obvious they are not used to being challenged in any way and could not put up even a fraction of a reasonable challange. Their way or no way seems to be the motto in our courts and it could not be shown to be in any way a place of Justice. I was so disgusted at their behaviour and so annoyed that they are getting away with this that I have emailed Mr Kenny MacAskill for an explanation. I have attached a copy of that email and will let you know of his response.
However, on a brighter note, it proves they can be challenged and when they are they don’t know how to deal with you. Everybody who accepts their invitation to go along to their place of business must challange them, for until we do they will carry on with their unlawful sham. Although Nalas experience was short it was sweet, because he collapsed their system on the day. He won on the day. Even though they may be back, so will we. Every time.
Well done Nala! You conducted yourself in an organised, polite and civil manner. A true Sovereign.
I for one am very proud of you and behind you every step of the way, and im sure we all are. It really is an honour knowing you. We are all on a learning curve and you have brought so much to the table and for that I uphold the greatest respect for you. Thank you.
Dear Mr MacAskill,
Yesterday, as a member of the public, I went along to the Justice of the Peace Court in Irvine as an observer to listen to a case regarding a minor traffic offence (relating to road tax, mot) against a ‘Mr Alan T Houston’.
I was shocked and horrified by the events that took place there, and therefore have decided to contact you as a public servant to look into this matter.
When the case was called, myself and 10 others entered into the public gallery.
The Court entered into discussion with the 3rd party litigant for the summoned party and there appeared to be some problem with the JP’s (there were 3 of them) and the court officials in that they did not understand, the legal definition of a ‘person’ as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary when the 3rd party litigant stated that a ‘person’ was in fact a Corporation. The first thing I found to be odd, was that the Court had little or no knowledge of what the law actually was. This therefore gives question as to how those on the bench can in fact see that Justice is done, not only in this case but in all cases!
At this stage, a member of the public gallery, who obviously understood the term ‘person’ let out a gasp at the response of the Court. Using this as a feeble excuse to clear the Court, they called a recess.
Bewildered, I decided to stay to see how this case would unfold.
When the case was recalled, the public were refused entry and it was stated it was to be ‘closed court’. The observers of the case stated their truth that it was a public building and a public gallery and should not be refused entry. The officals of the Court also told the 3rd party litigant of Mr Houston that no one else could enter except he. He refused to do so, stating that he would not enter without witnessess to what was an open Court before the recess.
When your Court declared a closed Court and was challanged by the public on this, they stated ‘the case was not being heard today’.
This Mr MacAskill was disgraceful and unjust behaviour in a public Court by the very people who are there to see that Justice is done and is what their Oath of Office represents.
I understand it is your duty, as a public servant to investigate this illegal sham that was yesterday and take the appropriate action with those concerned.
The bottom line, Mr MacAskill, was that your Court intended carrying out an illegal Star Chamber . Unless you can clarify otherwise.
I would therefore be pleased if you can tell me
1. if it is normal practice to have a closed Court on minor traffic offences
2. to close a Court to the public just because the bench are being challanged by the 3rd party litigant?
3. that it is legal for a Court to dictate that a 3rd party litigant be alone in Court with only the Court
4. that it is legal for the Court to dictate that the 3rd party litigant can have no witness to the proceedings
I am not a trained legal, but my common sense tells me that these points cannot be so, as it is totally unfair and Justice cannot be seen to be done under these practices.
As this is an urgent matter I expect you will give urgent response.
Yours sincerely,
nominedeus 