Understanding the Difference Between Trial by Jury and Jury Trial
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ม.ค. 2024
- Get our FREE Peace Keepers and Court Auditor courses here at peacekeepers.org.uk/
FREE Council Tax dispute challenge download here noc.peacekeepers.org.uk/
"Peace Keepers have been created to help secure a just and equitable existence., coming together to defend the peoples peace, to restore and preserve our inalienable rights, the highest standing in truth to be sovereign."
Nothing can be done to the prejudice of the people.
(Bill of Rights 1688)
Law is the people’s birth right.
(Act of Settlement 1700)
All are equal under the law.
No one is above the law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
No one can knowingly impose their will upon any other without freewill.
Everybody has lawful excuse to the right of self defence.
---------------------------------
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Allowance is made for "fair use" purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PDF Download
peacekeepers.org.uk/wp-conten...
Maxim of Law: .'what appears similar is not the same'.
The Bill of rights is in full Force.. It’s the British union has subverted our English rights & customs. Hopefully you get it as we do not have an English parliament.
Yes it is in full force, and it's the only lawful authority by which a parliament can assemble to govern, FOR the people.
The bill of right is a creation of parliament, therefore statutory, and can be changed at the caprice of the incumbent government though parliament.
The true authoritative document is the declaration of rights which was created by a convention of the people, not parliament. The bill of rights is the statutory version of the declaration.
The declaration of rights is real.
The bill of rights is a legal fiction.
Definition of legal fiction, a fact that may or may not be true in reality.
Brilliant as usual. Thanks Gentlemen
My understanding is that a jury trial, the jurors are advised / directed by the judge what the law is and they apply the facts as they see them to the law. A trial by jury on the other hand, the jurors are not so restricted and they can consider the law as they see it and effectively nullification albeit limited to the facts of tha case.
That’s a reasonable interpretation isn’t it?
The jury directions MUST BE....
Confused by Marc's comments. To brief for me 🤪
my understanding was in a jury trial the judge can direct the jury to ignore statesment made or evidance presented durying the trial however, in a trial by jury the judge cannot direct the jury because the jury is indepented and, it is not only the man or women on trial but the law that brought him/her to trial is also in the dock. if the jury find the law the defendant broke to be frivolous they can strike that law from the books forever !! just asking not having a go at anyone !
Agree, and the law being on trial also is what happened in the Penn & Mead case, hence the plaque.
Also in a Trial by jury there has to be a unanimous decision, just vote of not guilty and the defendant walks free, The judge is not the judge but just a convenor, the jury is the judge.
With a Jury trial the judges directs the jury and can accept a majority decision - All corrupt and the law is not on trial as with a trial by jury.
They are very Different.
@@Spenny-px3mu I agree. However, what is the origin of this, and what is the source of your understanding of this?
@cleveland100 "my understanding was in a jury trial the judge can direct the jury to ignore statement made or evidence presented during the trial" That is correct but this has to be understood in a specific context to the rules of Evidence. If Evidence is Prejudicial and its Prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value, the Judge is duty bound to direct the Jury to not consider it, or more often to exclude it from going before the Jury in the first place, (this of course is a discretion that itself has a risk of abuse attached to it) the Prejudicial value is essentially the risk that the Jury will use or interpret the evidence in a way that is perverse or likely to be misapplied to the substantive points of the case. Ironically this principle is itself prone to be misapplied by the bench and used perversely as i experienced in a case where the Tribunal was essentially engineering a finding that was wrong in fact and law but was expedient for the State in preserving a status quo ... the moral here is these people will screw you over if you leave them an inch of wriggle room, meaning if you do not know how these principles of evidence are supposed to work they will be used in a way that undermines the rule of law and a fair and impartial tribunal. Solution: get a good treatise on Law of Evidence and learn it inside out.
LEX TERAE. The law of the land. The phrase is used to distinguish this from the civil or Roman law. By lex terrae, as used in Magna Charta, is meant one process of law, namely, proceeding by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men.
Marc / Brian , again you are correct, and I for one was a person who thought they were different. A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
Where does law come from?? In the beginning was the word....
Brilliant stuff as usual - the common sense common law fellas! Peace :-)
The jury directions MUST BE....
"you must determine from the evidence if the accused did the act, and then follow your conscience as to whether it is wrong"
Amazing 🎉
After the Sam Melia trial when the jury decided he was guilty of not breaking the law but of having a joke poster and book they didn’t like.I have little faith in jury trial.
If you have been through the free courses you would know I absolutely agree with you :) Having done this research I have not been persuaded... Reason is who are others to condemn me...
Only the power greater than ourselves can do that... and that we can only determine by searching for the truth which is our best understanding which changes over time, hence fact is not fixed in stone so how can you appeal? which means there must be right of appeal...
Hence a must is a reasoned judgement which a jury does not giving you that... Lord Diplock summed it up in that law is about rationality....
Ironically Pope Boniface even stated that same truth in Unum Sanctum: "The spiritual man is to be judged by no man, ..." which is why i guess the courts do not like to recognise a spiritual man as that would essentially render their jurisdiction obsolete, at least in terms of law outside of the basic ten commandments.@@marchorn466
' P E R S O N ' B E L O N G ' S T O T H E V A T I C A N .
Why don't you learn to write like a normal person as taught in school!
The 'Human Creature' is that particular person, which is Not the same as the spiritual man, spiritual really just means breathing, even the allegorical use of the word requires a life force behind it. See Unum Sanctum
I got arrested in my car for not identifying. They had a recovery lorry take my car to another county while they held me at the station.
They charged me for the usual obstruction BS. I had great fun at the magistrates plea hearing and really upset my useless solicitor. I eventually pleaded not guilty, and the magistrate tried to move the hearing for the trial 20 miles away. So i had to put him straight and told him it will be at this magistrates court. and he acquiesced.
I didn't go to that hearing, i showed my useless solicitor how to use case law regarding Rice v Connolly 1966. The police dropped the charge.
The recovery company that had my car wanted £200 before i could collect it.
I told the police that they had taken my car out of the county,, contrary to magna carta's statute of Marlborough 1267 destresses on the kings high way.
They promptly returned my car to my home that day.
This proves two things, the road traffic act regarding identifying is contrary to the common law. And Magna carta statute of Marlborough is still in effect.
Thank you
You are not the person identified on a Driving Licence, you are the Holder of the License. Let them have it, let them nail that sacrificial lamb to the cross That is a Key fact, the difference between 'your or yours' and 'its' is significant. And most Police Officers are too stupid to know the difference, so no point trying to hold Court at the side of the Highway, give them what they need and let them know you only hold it. You cold of course return the instrument back to its issuer and tell them you are no longer holding their child for them ..but then you have a bigger problem to solve...the ignorance and beliefs of the police who will constantly harass and assail you in their erroneous presumptions of who you are and what your capacity is.
@@genuinearticle33 We are entitled to anonymity in this country. Any statute that infringes upon our rights are void ab initio.
The driving licence is only to show competence, nothing more.
Anonymity is the shield against the tyranny of the majority.
@@genuinearticle33 You missed the point totally. I am referring to a fundamental principle of anonymity.
If you give up your licence, then you lose the privilege to drive your car on public roads and will be liable to fines and forfeitures if caught doing so.
No the DL is actually evidence of an Agreement, Agreements can be undone the same way they were created, but you will face very stiff resistance to that truth becoming reality@@JohnSmith-vy4lh
Imagine being accused of something and the only way to prove your inoccence is to heal within a couple of days after being told to hold a red-hot iron or poker. If its gets infected they kill you. Omg Yikes. 😢
Got mine today from Amazon £7.39
What does not add up is that till approximately the 1300s all courts in angleterre were said to be dealt with in french
It seems that many people think/believe the legislation is their conscience!
BoR J Sumption- seven and a half quid on Amazon
TRIAL BY JURY VS JURY TRIAL. In a Trial by Jury it only takes just ONE member of the Jury to be in disagreement with the other 11 peers to bring about an automatic not guilty. JURY TRIAL is the opposite way round, it takes all 11 JURY peers to find you you guilty. You can't be "Unanimous" if ALL are not in agreement!!!!
The simple fact if one does not agree then that suffices and must be a not guilty...
I read the Bill of Rights today, and I expected to be cheered up, but I think it’s had the opposite effect.
On page 24 it says even the Bill of Rights could, in theory be repealed by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.
And the sovereignty of parliament.
It may enact or repeal any law whatsoever and on page 25.
It says Parliament could fashion the law as it saw fit.
Thank you for this explanation. I have a couple of questions please:
1) Is it everyone's right to ask for a trial by jury? If so, what recourse is there should that request be denied?
2) How are 'errors in law' corrected? What is the process for this, and are there cases of this occurring?
Thank you
Dunning Kruger effect 💪🏻
Agreed @marchorn466, and have you noticed ... Daniel has quietly gone to ground. You & your team are too challenging for him to deal with so it seems.
Oh and a very interesting development from the Reform Party people c/o Anne Widdicombe, she recently stated at their conference that they will have (if elected) liability orders subject to legal challenges in our courts of law. She was focused on the "Child Maintenance Services" liability orders, however this would/will set a precedent for all of them.
My direct replies still keep disappearing. 🙄
Not to be picky but the R v Felixstowe case has nothing to do with Council tax, it's about Magistrates' refusal to disclose their names. Other than that, a fab video👍
Hi I think my council has just dropped the court in the poo because they have disclosed the names of the three judges who issued my liability order.
Correct - if their names are not on the alleged liability order is void as the law knows not an anonymous JP = no lawful authority = defective instrument and in law does not exist :)
The remedy to that would be to get them to state a case under the MCA 1980: Part V, s.111 as that would necessarily imply they must be named ? @@marchorn466
@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629Depends how good your ears are ;) But at least the brain works :)
I would like proof of your claim??
please brothers.
The evidence is before you - list the you feel was not suitably evidenced as such a generality cannot rationally be responded to!
PEER. Equal. A man's peers are his equals. A man is to be tried by his peers.
Still none the wiser on 'the law of the land' which i was hoping you would shed better light upon. It sounded like you were saying it was a custom of that time for Trial by Ordeal to be in force (that cruel and perverse practice came out of the Roman Catholic Church and carried through its proxy the Norman conquest) ......... that does not really explain how that term 'law of the land' can be understood today, still love you Marc, but that narration is not helping clear up ambiguity but rather adds to it.
nearly April the 1st again lads 🤣
And new surprises are coming :)
None of this appears to help Julian Assange, therefore totally pointless for the ordinary people
Knowledge is what is creating the change...
@@marchorn466 I agree Marc knowledge is essential otherwise “Rights are not available to the individual who is ignorant of their Rights or does not care”
Can I get a email address to email you instead of TH-cam eyes
goto the website
For some reason my comments in reply to Marc keep being hidden from publication; so 4th and final attempt to post on this:
Marc; why would you? (re Jury nullification) when the obligation eg. for Council Tax has been fabricated (by legislation not law) & established under HRA1998 with its cohort ECHR. 😉
A reinforcement of the creation of this obligation in my opinion would be the presumption of the court that you are a "citizen" (a legal person status) who is deemed to be an individual owing allegiance to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the government. This harks back to the "Parliament is sovereign" claims which are evidentially misleading if not false. They only hold sovereignty in a supreme legal capacity; which must comply with our rule of law as well as our constitution. They (Judges & MPs etc.) need to be reminded that our common law is the foundation of our legal system and that no legislation can stand where it contravenes primary law.
We also need to remind them that we are a constitutional monarchy first & foremost; not a democracy.
So back to the "obligation"; under HRA1998 it is in plain sight c/o paragraph 2 of PART II - THE FIRST PROTOCOL - Article 1 - Protection of property:
"The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way [ impair ] the [ right ] of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
How is it possible to afford a non sentient entity with a "human right"? .. It is not. In my opinion a notable point on "impair", implies that the "right" of the State exists pre and post HRA1998.
I believe you can nullify (or disqualify) an attending judge or magistrate(s) by simply requiring them to confirm on the record that as they as a trustee of "our law" will fulfil their fiduciary duty to ensure that due process of law under our rule of law is not interfered with in any way that is contrary to primary law.
My two (conjoined) examples of restraints upon their fiduciary duty that come to mind that would disqualify them from presiding over you:
1) Being bound by Acts & Statutes.
2) Being a signatory to the Official Secrets Act.
If you agree with my determinations on the "obligation" then please pass on your prize money to a worthy cause.
Good point, will you get a worthy response? What is your understanding of the 1972 treaty that purportedly relegated the Monarch to a mere head of state ? i raise this as the concept of subjects and allegiance would also become obsolete and all that would remain would be citizens or legal/statutory persons of that State, which in turn has allowed the Human Rights legislation to circumvent private property and liberty where Public Policy is held as supreme, which of course in terms of the hierarchy of Law an utter nonsense.
@@genuinearticle33 ECA 1972 (now repealed) that ceded UK`s sovereignty (legislatively) to the former Common Market without the consent of the British people. The great betrayal that sought to homogenise us into the later EU citizenship identity created by the Maastricht treaty and compounded by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. All done without our consent. I believe the the Royals of CM/EU countries were exempt at cost of being as your say mere heads of state.
HRA 1998 was the facilitator for ECHR of which both afforded the state the right to hold a control & influence over our fundamental property rights. You can see why our government is so desperate to retain ECHR at all costs.
No matter as the primacy of our constitutional law is currently sacrosanct and superior to all legislation.
Yes well put, the reason why they push the HR legislation and the ECHR i that it is places individual proprietary rights as subject to Public Policy, however it is clear upon further investigation that this Public communitarian doctrine applies to the statutory Persons - problem being nearly all people hold property through that 'transmitting utility' where citizens are treated as Agents of the Corporate Aggregate. This is why the PK are sunk when it comes to raising constitutional principles, because if we read them with that discernment we see that they do not protect statutory Persons but rather the People of an A Priori jurisdiction, but note we are testing new ground here as when was the last time the People or one of the People of GB were heard in one of HM Courts? This is the real issue for me, and it is why it faces the most resistance, because the consequences upon the Courts of Administration of this capacity and jurisdiction becoming prevalent essentially render those Administrative Courts obsolete ...one can understand why such vitriol and FMOTL Ad-hominems is aimed at anyone bringing this issue to light by members of the Legal Fraternity (who have actually thought this through), because they actually know what this means. @@Non-corpus-juris
Jury nullification is achieved by asserting (for and on the record) your fundamental and constitutional right to trial by jury before the law.
You dont need to do that - you simply ask yourself from the evidence was a wrong commited...
@@marchorn466 Why would you?, when the obligation eg. for Council Tax has been fabricated (by legislation not law) & established under HRA1998 with its cohort ECHR. 😉
Obligation under HRA1998 is in plain sight c/o paragraph 2 of PART II - THE FIRST PROTOCOL - Article 1 - Protection of property
"The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way [ impair ] the [ right ] of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
How is it possible to afford a non sentient entity with a "human right"? .. Its not.
In my opinion a notable point on "impair" which implies that the "right" exists pre and post HRA1998.
Btw you can nullify (or disqualify) the attending judge or magistrate by simply requiring them to confirm on the record that as they as a trustee of "our law" will fulfil their fiduciary duty to ensure that due process of law under our rule of law is not interfered with in any way that is contrary to primary law.
My two (conjoined) examples of restraints upon their fiduciary duty that come to mind that would disqualify them from presiding over you:
1) Being bound by Acts & Statutes.
2) Being a signatory to the Official Secrets Act.
If you agree with my determinations on the "obligation" then please pass on your prize money to a worthy cause.
@@marchorn466 Follow up; during your recent and excellent collaboration with Richard Vobes, you made the point that there are 3 courts in play, being, civil, criminal and commercial. It is their commercial courts that deny people our right to due process of law and the right to a jury trial. This is why we must assert out fundamental/constitutional rights at the outset before proceedings commence in their "controlled" courts. The challenge & acquisition of jurisdiction is key is order to establish a court of record that is of competent jurisdiction.
@@Non-corpus-juris Correct! Dont call them 'commercial' as they are 'revenue collection' = nothing commercial about that - simple threats and theft!!!
lol bunch clueless people what don’t have understand of life