The Power of Evidence: A Must Watch for All Truth Seekers!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Scotland I stopped paying parking tickets that are unlawful and and water rates, the sewers are coming out of the drains ,I have bought water filters to clean the tap water etc.. Sheriff officers then take over and as always, I tell them , you have no authority and I have no contract with them and for the last 2 yrs all is quiet. qUESTION EVERYTHING.
Parliamentary Question:
My constituents have brought to my attention the erosion or deletion of their inalienable rights. Parliament has unlawfully and covertly fully repealed and partially repealed sections of the English Bill of Rights 1689. As the house is aware, this inalienable law originated from a convention parliament, not an ordinary one. When will the house acknowledge this significant historical error and nullify all repeals by any ordinary parliament of this inalienable law? Will the house recognize the English Bill of Rights 1689 as the absolute rights of Englishmen and women as previous parliamentarians have done? These two unlawful repeals have led to the misconception and wrongful assumption that parliament is sovereign. In reality, it is not. Parliament serves as the primary legislature, constrained by a constitution and the inalienable rights of the people. 1. The UK Public General Act 1867 unlawfully repealed section three of the Bill of Rights 1689 (access to historic laws). 2. The Statute Law Revision Act 1948 partially repealed section two of the Bill of Rights 1689. This partial repeal is the source of the misconception regarding parliamentary sovereignty.
These actions, among others, constitute a serious infringement of the Common Law of England. These repeals must be rendered void, and the inalienable rights - incorporeal rights - must be restored to the people. My constituents insist on asserting their rights as Englishmen and women.
We have a hearing before Magistrates in Feb, (South Tyneside Magistrates' Court), thinking that we filed a false Statutory Declaration, because a 'hearing' took place, with no prior Summons. After a Council 'fine', which was ignored (unfortunately), they sent doc to say: replies must be made to the court. This was entrapment, and ignored. The council bods were then served the Caution Notice before the hearing date, but failed to inform the court. So, the court doesn't know, yet, what we have - 3 Notices, no rebuttals - because, having rec'd no summons, none of our paperwork was before the court. The HOOT is: the court is relying on the council docs to prove we knew about the case, when our point is, we had not heard from the court, before they issued the Notice of fine and Collection Order, which included a Victim Surcharge! The case concerns a man's daughter, being kept off school, to go on hols. It's a hell of a learning curve, and I am eternally grateful to Marc, Brian, Lance, and team for all their sterling work. Thank you.
Parliamentary Question:
My constituents have brought to my attention the erosion or deletion of their inalienable rights. Parliament has unlawfully and covertly fully repealed and partially repealed sections of the English Bill of Rights 1689. As the house is aware, this inalienable law originated from a convention parliament, not an ordinary one. When will the house acknowledge this significant historical error and nullify all repeals by any ordinary parliament of this inalienable law? Will the house recognize the English Bill of Rights 1689 as the absolute rights of Englishmen and women as previous parliamentarians have done? These two unlawful repeals have led to the misconception and wrongful assumption that parliament is sovereign. In reality, it is not. Parliament serves as the primary legislature, constrained by a constitution and the inalienable rights of the people. 1. The UK Public General Act 1867 unlawfully repealed section three of the Bill of Rights 1689 (access to historic laws). 2. The Statute Law Revision Act 1948 partially repealed section two of the Bill of Rights 1689. This partial repeal is the source of the misconception regarding parliamentary sovereignty.
These actions, among others, constitute a serious infringement of the Common Law of England. These repeals must be rendered void, and the inalienable rights - incorporeal rights - must be restored to the people. My constituents insist on asserting their rights as Englishmen and women.
The establishment do not evidence any of their claims in my experience. They just expect you to accept.
Bri , mark … I have asked who created the obligation for me and how /why does this apply to me ….the answer always is ‘because it does’
Parliamentary Question:
My constituents have brought to my attention the erosion or deletion of their inalienable rights. Parliament has unlawfully and covertly fully repealed and partially repealed sections of the English Bill of Rights 1689. As the house is aware, this inalienable law originated from a convention parliament, not an ordinary one. When will the house acknowledge this significant historical error and nullify all repeals by any ordinary parliament of this inalienable law? Will the house recognize the English Bill of Rights 1689 as the absolute rights of Englishmen and women as previous parliamentarians have done? These two unlawful repeals have led to the misconception and wrongful assumption that parliament is sovereign. In reality, it is not. Parliament serves as the primary legislature, constrained by a constitution and the inalienable rights of the people. 1. The UK Public General Act 1867 unlawfully repealed section three of the Bill of Rights 1689 (access to historic laws). 2. The Statute Law Revision Act 1948 partially repealed section two of the Bill of Rights 1689. This partial repeal is the source of the misconception regarding parliamentary sovereignty.
These actions, among others, constitute a serious infringement of the Common Law of England. These repeals must be rendered void, and the inalienable rights - incorporeal rights - must be restored to the people. My constituents insist on asserting their rights as Englishmen and women.
Keep up the good work
Safe&Effective👍
pinned ?
First in time, greater in right, is a legal maxim. A legal maxim that is extremely, if not impossible to rebut.
For example,
Did ‘religion’ and the ‘church’ create man, or did man create ‘religion’ and the ‘church’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘monarchy’ create man, or did man create ‘monarchy’? First in time, greater in right.
Did ‘government’ create man, or did man create ‘government’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘Crown Corporation’ create man, or did man create the ‘Crown Corporation’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘birth certificate’ create man, or did man create the ‘birth certificate’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘bar association’ create man, or did man create the ‘bar association’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘health system’ (NHS) create man, or did man create the ‘health system’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘council’ create man, or did man create the ‘council’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘police’ create man, or did man create the ‘police’? First in time, greater in right.
Did the ‘bank’, and ‘financial system’ create man, or did man create the ‘bank’ and ‘financial system’? First in time, greater in right. …i rest my case.
Always wondered how to prove this. I never knew it was a legal maxim, and I've been in this movement (for want of a better word) for nearly 20 years!
A wise man knows how little he knows.
Ab-initio,
in the beginning
@paulleahy4697 I know that one, I have a good list of old legal maxims on my pc that stopped working! Big list hope I can get it back😬
This is why the Old Testament is obviously a fictional document. Just read the first ten words. Or one could just read, and question, the first four words.
The narrative of Genesis is that an all seeing and all knowing celestial dictator got very busy in a very short period of time time, and made everything - from nothing.
But that official narrative also presupposes the existence of god, therefore negating the first founding claim that creation was the beginning. What or who made god? And since god reigns supreme in heaven, having evicted all the other gods, who made all of them, and who made heaven??
Therefore, any claims made based upon a supposition that the Old Testament version has any validity, is fundamentally flawed due to lack of possibility in the claims of origin.
The simple facts are that we as humans have no idea what or where we actually came from. To fill the void of ignorance, we have, over millennia, invented stories. And more worryingly, we have come to believe and rely upon those stories - without ANY supporting evidence.
Peace
Legal or illegal who cares i presume everything one dose is illegal when in the public, all one cares about
Is it lawful or unlawful and where’s the man who claims the wrong; harm; damage; loss; injury, come forward and make oneself know to i with their claim and i will compensate that man , if not then for ever hold the peace.
I would love to no who pays the BLACK belt barrister 🤣vits all in the name, then watch him and you can smell the BS. Thank you guys ❤
Below is a letter I've written to Companies House for clarification. I await their reply.
Where is your letter??
@@G58 I posted a draft yesterday but I have sent this today as a freedom of Information enquiry to Companies House.
Dear Companie House
I am confused!
It has always been my understanding that Companies House records on its website had a hierarchy system where an incorporated entity was pyramidical with its name at the top and of officers of the corporation in secondary place, and example being xxxx Ltd being an incorporated name and yyyy being appointed directors or members of that corporation.
You may or not be aware that recently there has been significant debate on social media about local authorities being “corporations”, so I took the opportunity to look up Glasgow City Council on your website. There were a number of unusual entries where subsidiaries were where directors would normally be listed but one of these will probably go some way to explain my confusion.
• Glasgow City Council
• Seemis Group LLP being a single appointed director or member:
• With Glasgow City Council being an appointed director or member of Seemis Group LLP under the heading of “People”.
From this Glasgow City Council could be construed as a director or member of itself which seems most unusual, if not completely bonkers.
To cap it all, in Section O of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, number 84110 “General public administration activities” which fits its remit exactly as it charges for services it provides through council tax and non-domestic rates which is effectively a business.
If it is not a business, what is the purpose of it being incorporated?
Watching others (r vobes) is how i am learning
Question: do the guests ever provide supportive evidence of anything they claim?
I have only ever seen people making claims and offering opinions.
How many court cases have they been involved in? How many have they won?
How many of their claimed processes have been proven to work?
I have listened to people REPEATING the same old nonsense for 14 years and never backed up with anything of substance.
Be careful who you listen too those who do not offer supporting evidence are I'm afraid not worth listening to.
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel them pages are what eventually led me to peacekeepers so for me it was the way I needed to get my head around the general idea but it was ur page that I saw results and I am slowly getting myself better clued up, I am no where near ready as I'm still going through bill of rights ATM I like to do a day every 3rd day so I don't move on till I can see with my own eyes the path I need to be going to deal with my issues and do my own research for my personal situation
I went to the court using the 1688 bill of rights.
I am currently in Supreme court. 3 ministers stood down.
Can I come on your show please
Please email peacekeepers@post.com
Regulation 13. They want to see bank accounts.
I'm only at this since March 2020 and I'm seriously frustrated that an open mind is very rare, the indoctrination is basically and completely in there and schooling is wholly responsible, now who would have believed this in general terms?
Yes this a cognitive dissonance problem and the result of entraining young minds into submission without discrimination and rational thought patterns.
I swear on my budgies' eyesight, it's true man in the pub told me! Cash please 😅😅
The rule of law is a term that is often used but difficult to define. A frequently heard saying is that the rule of law means the government of law, not men. But what is meant by “a government of law, not men”?
How do i get in on this meeting fellow peacekeepers, it would be epic to share ideas
Have been following you guys and learning ...thankyou so much .
After watching you're videos and reading comments
What is stopping the people under their sovereignty...
In having a peoples vote stating we are not happy with parliament, when want them removed , parliament dissolved..
And this is all lawful...
What is the point of an election? like you say it's wasting time .
There is clear evidence voting is no choice..
Hi thank you.
Can i ask what is Regulations 13.
The council demanding. To know . Who you live with. Nanes and dare of Birth .
Council tax regulations 13
Are two corrabarating eyewitness statements evidence?
afidavit is
Statements become evidence once they’ve been testified to by the witness under Oath in Court. Even then that can be challenged by the other side however, it’s highly unlikely the Judge wouldn’t admit it into evidence 👍🏻
@@godislove8740beat me to it, affidavit presented with facts and evidence and notarised, is powerful..
There appears to be a mistake ( MISS - TAKE - I may have mistakenly laid a claim upon something that I do not own - trespass - forgive me)
Where is the proper notice (meeting of the minds)
When can I meet the claimant so this matter can be dealt with honorably
Remain AS-KING
How do I get on this meeting fellow peacekeepers 😎
Like the globe we are taught at school .impossible
Why?
Peace Keepers, The scenario:
A car keeper has refused to participate in ULEZ scheme that TFL offered to take part in. Following such a refusal TFL started to send the letters with offers to pay fines with a threat to collect "the debt" via collecting agencies. A car keeper refused such offers too. What would be the right way to behave by a car keeper? I assume that the course of actions should be similar to council tax dispute. Is my assumption correct? Should ULEZ dispute be even less difficult then council tax?
Perhaps you did some videos on ULEZ. If not, may be you can discuss the matter from legal - lawful point of view and how to protect self from this money grabbing scheme lawfully.
Kind Regards
The premise of your reasoning is good, however if you are serious about progression it is important to allow others the opportunity to present their evidence, it appears to me certain subjects have been dismissed prematurely, a good idea is to have an open call on zoom or the like, pick a subject matter and allow those who dissent with your opinion the opportunity to articulate their case, (this will filter out the Do your own research clowns and the repeaters as they wont want a proper interrogation) for example you had dismissed the role of Admiralty in the Courts, it seems you had conflated the procedure of Admiralty with that of the maritime subject matter, it is trite law that the Common Law Courts absorbed rather much of the Admiralty over the last two centuries, undoubtedly this has created a kludgeocracy of confusion in the minds of all but the initiated, but simply denying its existence helps no man, we must accept that all is not what it seems to be until we have but the clearest vision with which to see things, then it is quite simple to see the why's, the when's and the how's. Though be warned there are those who profit from ambiguity and planting the seeds of ambivalence into your mind.
I agree on discussion but before a case must be presented with evidence and argument, and if that cannot be forthcoming then why would one waste their time? I have over the decades been down every rabbit hole on the internet... and where there is no evidence I dont waste my time :)
Specifically we have been absolutely clear - if you want admiralty courts then go to the High Court Admiralty division...
www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/admiralty-court
I’ve got a liability order against me can you help us out I’m not paying nothing but not clued up properly
I disagree, asking someone to research things is a way to get them to investigate, 90% of the time people have a stand point based on feelings, nostaglia or propaganda, getting them to step away from that or put another way, asking them to forget everything they've ever been told is almost impossible, the only way they can learn is to start down the reality rabbit holes and they for far to many is terrifying, but it's the best way.
Asking them to do their own research is admission that person saying it does not have faith in what they are saying - simply provide the evidence and ask others to rebut it!!!
@@marchorn466 I still disagree, if you're asking someone like the Barrister who covers your content and disputes it, then yes he needs to confirm that which can't be googled.
If however you are discussing say the Bill or Rights then it's far better to have people look it up themselves, it forces them to think and engage the brain. We all know all this should be taught in schools as it is in the US, we have a lot of catching up in that regard and the more effort people put in the more they'll begin to understand it.
@@siukcnc That is an absolute waste of energy - If you cannot show evidence of opinions then people should not post their opinions! To simply make unsupported statements and then tell people to do their own research is irrational. By giving evidence they can challenge opinions!!!
@@marchorn466 Again I totally disagree for the reasons stated.,
Romans 2:11-16. King James Version · For there is no respect of persons with God
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: