Please can you do a video to explain why all courts make decisions on proven facts, yet the family court’s do it on opinion and balance of probabilities which is extremely unfair as family court judge’s are scared to rule against social services
I would say it's because companies like Child Social Services offer incentives to these bitter old demonic's to take more children, for reasons such as hitting targets - you will find councils are working with them , the socail worker will offer lots of so called help and then writes down ( incapable mother, we had to provide support ) this going on a record they title ( child in need ) they build up a case with each visit , and when they have twisted as much truth as possible into complete lies , they swoop in with the police and steal the child ... they then provide the private clients protection services such as after school kcc clubs while blocking the child from using all social media - they hold them hostage until the morgage is paid which is when the money stops ( age 16 ) then they dump the child and move house to escape being held morally accountable - these occultist pedophile networks are no different than councils giving their freinds permission to build on green belt land without any rights - as everything comes down to breaching agent duties , we know as profit sharing , its like asking a court to provide their anti-bribery statements or a court receipt - ion for a receipt and get excuses like no ink , or needing to ask some one whos never in the building and court managers who hide their names , the list gos on - courts don't deal with facts unless presented - read the kings revenue , as to state - we are all certified idiots above the age of majority , until such man or woman makes themselves known as no longer being lost at sea because the legal system use the 12 presumptions of guilt - as an idiot is always subject to secondary legislation as an assumed company doing business .
Family courts work of proven facts. You need to document all protection meetings.you needs to record social services without them knowing for your own protection. Social services will delete what they want to delete and just claim data protection. Keep everything filed and also resend the information to social services. If you are representing yourself in court. 1. Everything has to be filed in order. If you have the patience and the defendant, you do not have to present anything to the final hearing. You will catch everyone off guard and the courts see the truth anyway. Just be yourself and make sure you have everything recorded going back years
again excellent explanation. Could you do one that explains the differences between - high court/supreme court/county court/appeal court/small claims court etc, their hierarchy and purposes?
To be honest I found this extremely confusing especially the use of 'civil', feel free to correct me if i'm wrong Common law is set of precedents by judges which can be civil or criminal Civil law created by parliament to deal with interactions between individuals or businesses Criminal law created by parliament to deal with interactions between the individual/business and the state. Murder is a common law crime (against the state not the individual) but the sentencing is covered by criminal (ie parliamentary law). Parliament can pass or change laws that overrule everything including the supreme court (unlike in the US)
Another superb video Daniel. Really good overview of the differences and similarities of Common and Civil Law. And I'm guessing it was court day today. 😀
Spot on I've just had a crime reported totally inaccurate to aid the offender to get off. There is also the old boys clubs and ill scratch your back if you scratch mine. I dont think There is a law that isn't corrupt in any country.
The cancer which runs deep through the police and the court system is FREEMASONRY, Until that is banished from society the system/ establishment will remain corrupt
Hi, as a recent new follower of your channel, I have to say it's absolutely brilliant. The way you explain things is brilliant.Keep up the awesome work your doing by day and what you do for this channel, and allowing us mortals to tap into your font of knowledge. 🥇👍🏻
The Common Law. Cause No harm, No loss, No breach of peace, No deceit within contract. Together with our Constitution, Magna Carts 1215. That covers any legislation, acts, or statutes.
We've been betrayed on all levels, so what are we going to do about it? Traitors all from top to bottom. Simple solution in less than 4 minuets th-cam.com/video/MOTWkQZKELU/w-d-xo.html all it needs is for enough to take responsibility by showing their support and things are put right. Plain and simple. Evidence: FCO 30 1048. Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) invoked in 2001, and ignored.
@user-xj2im1ep3o 1/The Common Law comes from the dome, (doom). A book of old rules and customs. Brought about by Alfred the Great. (Its what makes Britain great). Broken down they equate to 4 Laws only. Out side of the Law, we have legislation, statutes, or acts, (Constitution Magna Carta 1215/ Legal) that would only have Lawful backing if consented to by the ppl after being made fully aware of the facts.
the roudabout thing, I thought it was to say avoid going round the roundabout more than one full circle, make sure you know your exit and aim to get in first time.
What happens if a test case is presented and a precedent is set due to a decision made by the judge. Then a year later that case is reheard and they win the appeal. Is that precedent then repealed? If so, what happens to others convicted of the same offence and the precedent has been applied in their case on a subsequent date? Love the show as always.
More great content.. id love to have a video on the strength of 'context'...omission of context, or type of evidence that should be put forward as context, and of course is context hard or mitigation evidence?
Well you're entitled to you view. Act's, Statutes and Legislation are not 'laws'; they are man made instruments put in place through our Parliament, often with political or commercial self-interests at the heart of them. Common Law is supreme and one wonders what people used to do before all this 'legalise' came into being ie before Parliament was formed in the 13th century. In simple terms, Common Law or our inalienable rights cannot be changed though - Parliament often try to remove our rights and freedoms by invoking Acts, Statutes and Legislation and demanding we follow their new rules. Slavery is an example - how on earth did Parliament ever ignore this abomination for centuries until they finally passed an Act in 1833. It has always been unlawful and the courts could have acted at any time.
@@Steven-D-Allan Thats right. These courts and barristers arent in it for justice. Theyre all badly corrupted by money barristers maybe bullied into it by being threatened with having their licences revoked as they get told they can practice statutory law or common law but not both. And the money is in statutory law. Common law doesnt even need lawyers!! This is why theres no justice.
How can one judge let someone off for paedophilia or rape yet put someone in jail for what they say thats bad law Instead off looking at the crime they look at the criminal
People are not "let off" they are found either innocent or guilty. It doesn't matter what the transgression is if you are found guilty then there will generally be a punishment, if you are innocent there won't be.
If Pedophiles get to high a sentence imagine what happens when Epstien and his cronis activities truly get exposed and who it will be serving those sentences. Its going to be full of the elites
What's your thoughts on this ; Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury - which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
Specifically, can a defence, in a trial by jury, aim to convince the jury that the law itself in this case is unjust and that jury nullification is appropriate.
Could you expand on this, please: MANDATE meaning according to Black's Dictionary - a written command given by an authority to an agent (member of the public) / contract by which one person requests other people to agree voluntarily to a service. It only becomes effective when the mandatory agrees. On mandatory once you agree to do it, if you do not consent to the request, you are not obligated under the mandate to comply. Is there a difference between a mandate and a law?
i think there are many definitions of mandates even in a legal sense...also between the US and UK etc. I think your consent path is going down the supposed consent aspect often raised - BBB has confirmed before that consent in terms of laws is not an element (otherwise what drug smuggler would consult to the MDA 1971 etc)
@@vman7765 this ties i think to all the freeman stuff etc on consent..no legal basis..if i am a professional criminal and dont consent to MDA 1971 and POCA 2002, they dont apply to me..rightttt!
@@sarahstocks9828 not a problem this man needs to bring 100k of his buddies; judges, lawyers, attorneys just be a fair fight. Anytime, anyplace karl lentz is ready
Hi could you look into educating your subs on taking back owner ship of their legal fiction and showing them how as living men and women can't be punished for code act and mandate violations that would be helpful info for them
Thank you for this useful insight . Although I know you are a Barrister of E&W , I presume there are broad parallels with Scotland; also important differences. I provided technical support to the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh over a number of years , and although not legally qualified , came to feel that I ought to have pursued a career in either law or linguistics, rather than engineering , both of which I felt drawn to and an aptitude for later in life . Now academic , given my age of 63 , but I was exposed to a lot of legal process so do have a lot of respect for and interest in law ; with perhaps a healthy smattering of disrespect for instances where the law can very occasionally be an ass !
I had someone a week or two back, trying to tell me statutes were not law. County court decisions being extremely persuasive was the reason for the banks doing their best not to let an unfair charges case get into court.
Anything that enters a County court is a commercial contract. All bank accounts are commercial contract. A bank will always do their best to avoid validating the contract, for they must acknowledge Crown property in the identity they use for the account name.
I know that in America you have "personal injury" lawyers, "copyright" lawyers etc - is it common to have lawyers specialising that much into one specific area?
So in a way civil law is the bare bones of the legal system and common law flesh' it out. For a simple example civil law says that punching someone is generally illegal which gives the basis for the charge and common law tells the judge how to apply that law fairly given the specific circumstances of the case so whilst that punch may have been illegal, common law may suggest that given the facts it wouldn't be fair to give the guilty party the harshest punishment available under that specific civil law and instead suggest a more appropriate sentence based on the ruling of similar cases in the past. If that makes sense? Sort of like civil law says yes it's illegal or no it's not and common law tells the judge how to deal with the specific nuances of the case.
@@LRDefender80 He says at the very beginning that criminal law is different to common and civil law that's why I didn't mention criminal law in my comment.
You talk about common versus civil law, whilst mentioning that there is also criminal law. You say that common law applies to the interpretation of both civil and criminal law. As a non lawyer, I would understand the term "statute law" to be a generic term that encompasses both branches; is this correct? If so, why did you talk about civil, as opposed to statute law in this video?
So! The answer always begins “it depends”! The true answer by any lawyer or consultant! If the response does not start with this phrase they must be lying!
When I started dating my wife, I was studying law. I used to drive her mad because every time she asked me a question about *anything*, I always started my answer with "it depends"!
i think he has already dealt with that before to say that its not correct. Otherwise what drug smuggler consents to the Customs and Excise Management Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. PIRA tried that angle in another way by refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of British courts over them as in their minds 'soldiers'. Didnt benefit them much
I find this an interesting philosophical discussion. Is it possible to add to the potential defences of an Act but the Judge? Does a Statue have any depth until a Judge has made a finding on it etc. Thanks Daniel, another interesting video.
Regarding the "court" authority question, it comes from the monarch. Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty - they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people - don’t forget that.
Asked him are we all equal? That we have no one above us other than our creator? Yes the legal society created the titles of citizen defendants prosecutors judges But ask did they ever create man one single man any man in which they believe they control You only get to control that which you create
That is not true. They do not swear allegiance to the queen and are entirely independent. The crown does select who becomes judges. The prosecution works for the crown and represents the crown in court. The prosecution are also independent from government.
I need help I’m foreign and not good English. Also I’m a modern slavery victim. I’m not getting the appropriate support. How can I get in touch with you? Writing will be very difficult or even impossible. Please help. I’m being harass, stalk, spy and, even hacked by the police. I do have videos and phone calls recording. Please help.
There is no ‘law’ in Civil Law, it should be called contract & agreements. No man or corporate legal entity can buy Authentic Common Law, unlike Civil Law, plus there is no incentive for barristers to work in Common Law.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj A driving licence is a contract that is why there are two parts: the licensee and the licensor. The Terms & Conditions of contract are the highway code. Breach the speed limit/contract agreement and pay the fine. The licence document/identity is the property of the Crown and they hold a legal title to revoke the rights of the beneficiary of the driving licence. Stated in the Terms & conditions, the highway code. There is no law, there is only a contract. Statuary law /contract is subject to citizen status. Conversely, common law isn’t subject to citizen status.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj The driving licence document / identity is the property of the Crown. With the signature of the beneficiary, it forms the agreement/contract. That fulfills consideration and mutuality between the Crown and the beneficiary. No force was applied on either party that makes it a mutual agreement /contract. Hence Licensee / licensor. In a common law court, citizen status isn’t relevant, for the common law court questions the man / woman to account. But statuary law can only work through equity courts they can only process citizens. A citizen is a legal entity with an N/I number. The N/I number is the property of the Crown. Citizenship is a contract with the Crown where one agrees to be the identity created by the Crown with benefits.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj When one registers to vote, there is an agreement on that document one must sign. That is the contract with the Crown. The registered name on the election register document may look like yours, but that name is the property of the Crown. Anyone who completes and registers must use an ASL. (American Sign Language) Standardise from so-called Dog-Latin. Dog-Latin is really only corrupt Latin grammar. The driving licence/document is the property of the Crown and so is the name identity printed on the licence via the department of DVLA. The Crown links the NI number to the name printed on the driving licence and the standard British passport for their benefit. Crown created it and maintain it, therefore the NI number is their property.
@user-xj2im1ep3o Just making a statement does not qualify your claim. There is no legislation derived from man that can claim jurisdiction of common law. For common law is part of our birth title, no man can own it!
What did Jesus say about lawyers? Also did you read the Book of Judges in the Bible? And how much you know about natural law? Having a black belt comes with a lot of work!
I always say if you don't cause anybody any arm injury or loss everything should be ok.. Which would be part of common law wouldn't it? All the rest are just at acts and statues... Which we need to make society work.. There's way too many though...
No mention about the UK gov being a corporation and this is important, common law is for sovereign beings , and corporation law applies to citizens, people, persons,and is by consent only,corporation policies are by our consent only, the UK government is as we speak a bankrupt corporation listed on companies house. Governments world wide went bankrupt in 1933, and set up unlawfully corporations to extract monies to pay themselves back from the chattel........cattle.....us.....its population.... via taxation. ...Birth certification bonds,.....marriage certification,...fines....taxation ....parking tickets turned into bonds and traded on the stock exchange.....we are a commodity.....but corporation policies are just that.,..nothing more than recommendations only that need the peoples consent........ever noticed through this plandemic how governments put the emphasis on businesses to promote their policies of mask mandates and lock downs and the jabs....they cannot enforce it because we need to consent to it in admiralty law......which sadly we have actually done since this lot started....fear...coercion and bullying business has been there weapons, there so called laws do not exist......sorry.......we from birth have been duped....... Your children belong to the government corporation via you handing them over to the state and registering them at birth.....this certificate is bonded and traded on the stock exchange,.......get a copy of your cert and ask any broker what your birth cert fund is worth.....Mort..gages are securities and sold on to investment funds by the banks and traded on the stock exchange, leaving the banks with no I.Owe.You and no liability...... But a pay cheque for securitising your bank mortgage I.o.u.....taxes are unlawful and temporary every year they start again on the 5th of April....by our consent only...don't be fooled......The UK corporation is a scam in itself, we have more power as sovereign beings than we have been told.....courts work from corporations that allow corrupt judges token act decisions that are by an interpretation of what they see as a fit ruling in there opinion....... Legalese was a vocabulary designed by corporations to confuse all judges of common law origion into being confused, its a corporation language.........basically corruption in a so called legal binding rule book, but corporation policies are no more than bluffing the populations into believing its actual law..........
Ask yourself in your lifetimes how much GOVERNING do you really need when you wake up every morning (you had a governess when you were a baby but that wasn't a lifetime position, was it🤔?) who do you call up to ask what you should or should not do everyday? i the man who donated several times before
Many daily actions are governed by law, you just don't need to think about it unless something goes wrong. For example, you go into a shop and buy something, that is a contract governed by law. If the item turns out to be faulty, you have certain rights.
@@willg6551 a believer in the Christian god who believes in lifetimes plural is a heretic. Also believing in a single god is, according to Christianity, Islam and Judaism also heresy, the bible acknowledges that the roman-Greek pantheon is very real, but, you know, some peoples brains melt when they read that bible passage and it’s always difficult to watch. Your brain already melted, clearly, so it’s ok
@@knowitall4567 and. What's your point, [wo]man in the reflection of man. [wo]man are incompetent, [wo]man needs man end of story. Geneva bible : Thus God created the man in his image: in the image of God created he him: he created them male and female. Genesis 1:26 This image and likeness of God in man is expounded, Eph. 4:24, where it is written that man was created after God in righteousness and true holiness, meaning by these two words, all perfection, as wisdom, truth, innocence, power, etc.
law they just make it up as they going along ,it not what you do it who you are , you may have a very good case but you still lose. law is social engineering thats all .unless you have alot of money -pay to win !
Is the ultimate objective of the legal society to have man BE(gin) self-governance or ÄaÑ ONE WORLD ORDER in which results in ASSIMILATION, of man(kind) (in)voluntarily entering into the COLLECTIVE?
None of that literal nonsense, the law society ultimate objective is to make sure the lawyers they represent don’t get shafted by someone else, whilst simultaneously making sure they reach a certain professional standard.
notice Rules of Court in the smith court 1. Only a man or woman can appear 2. Man or woman must swear in under oath or affirmation first . 3. only verifiable answers. 4. if a superior claim comes before said court a copy to be handed. to the clerk and to i . 5. if another claim that creates controversy then move to trial by jury as soon requires no later than 2 weeks. 6. if no man or woman appears before said court. Then i order the case be discharge in it entirety 7. No legal person or legal language to be spoken. Only plain common english to be spoken man on man. 8. No defendants are allowed in said court only man or woman allowed to appear in said court 9. Only man or woman with firsthand knowledge of the wrong and be sworn in under oath or affirmation first 10. No plaintiff; solicitor; attorney; Mr; Mrs or any other tilts can appear in said court only man or woman can appear And so on.
THIS WILL BE FUNNY. SO YOUR THINK IT WAS LEGAL FOR FATHERHOOD TO BE ACTIVATED THROUGH CIVIL LAW WITH NO COMMON LAW PROTECTION. LETS WATCH THE BANTER!!! LOL LOL
Please can you do a video to explain why all courts make decisions on proven facts, yet the family court’s do it on opinion and balance of probabilities which is extremely unfair as family court judge’s are scared to rule against social services
You do know they get paid for taking kids of pearants.... Now you know why courts work with social services to screw men over
I would say it's because companies like Child Social Services offer incentives to these bitter old demonic's to take more children, for reasons such as hitting targets - you will find councils are working with them , the socail worker will offer lots of so called help and then writes down ( incapable mother, we had to provide support ) this going on a record they title ( child in need ) they build up a case with each visit , and when they have twisted as much truth as possible into complete lies , they swoop in with the police and steal the child ... they then provide the private clients protection services such as after school kcc clubs while blocking the child from using all social media - they hold them hostage until the morgage is paid which is when the money stops ( age 16 ) then they dump the child and move house to escape being held morally accountable - these occultist pedophile networks are no different than councils giving their freinds permission to build on green belt land without any rights - as everything comes down to breaching agent duties , we know as profit sharing , its like asking a court to provide their anti-bribery statements or a court receipt - ion for a receipt and get excuses like no ink , or needing to ask some one whos never in the building and court managers who hide their names , the list gos on - courts don't deal with facts unless presented - read the kings revenue , as to state - we are all certified idiots above the age of majority , until such man or woman makes themselves known as no longer being lost at sea because the legal system use the 12 presumptions of guilt - as an idiot is always subject to secondary legislation as an assumed company doing business .
Family courts work of proven facts. You need to document all protection meetings.you needs to record social services without them knowing for your own protection.
Social services will delete what they want to delete and just claim data protection. Keep everything filed and also resend the information to social services.
If you are representing yourself in court.
1. Everything has to be filed in order. If you have the patience and the defendant, you do not have to present anything to the final hearing. You will catch everyone off guard and the courts see the truth anyway. Just be yourself and make sure you have everything recorded going back years
thank you for this video as it helped me for my course in university
again excellent explanation. Could you do one that explains the differences between - high court/supreme court/county court/appeal court/small claims court etc, their hierarchy and purposes?
I love it when you go back to basics, demystifies the processes somewhat.
To be honest I found this extremely confusing especially the use of 'civil', feel free to correct me if i'm wrong
Common law is set of precedents by judges which can be civil or criminal
Civil law created by parliament to deal with interactions between individuals or businesses
Criminal law created by parliament to deal with interactions between the individual/business and the state.
Murder is a common law crime (against the state not the individual) but the sentencing is covered by criminal (ie parliamentary law).
Parliament can pass or change laws that overrule everything including the supreme court (unlike in the US)
Another superb video Daniel. Really good overview of the differences and similarities of Common and Civil Law. And I'm guessing it was court day today. 😀
🙏
The trouble is we have to much malfacience in our judiciary. To much personal involvement . Favouritism cronyism.
Spot on I've just had a crime reported totally inaccurate to aid the offender to get off. There is also the old boys clubs and ill scratch your back if you scratch mine. I dont think There is a law that isn't corrupt in any country.
Is there any judiciary free of wht you highlighted?
@@foxbat473 doubt it
The cancer which runs deep through the police and the court system is FREEMASONRY, Until that is banished from society the system/ establishment will remain corrupt
It's called human nature
Hi, as a recent new follower of your channel, I have to say it's absolutely brilliant. The way you explain things is brilliant.Keep up the awesome work your doing by day and what you do for this channel, and allowing us mortals to tap into your font of knowledge. 🥇👍🏻
Most informative. Thank you.
The Common Law.
Cause No harm,
No loss,
No breach of peace,
No deceit within contract.
Together with our Constitution, Magna Carts 1215.
That covers any legislation, acts, or statutes.
Doesn’t look like law to me. You might want to look at that again as it’s more like some weird bunch of commandments.
We've been betrayed on all levels, so what are we going to do about it?
Traitors all from top to bottom.
Simple solution in less than 4 minuets th-cam.com/video/MOTWkQZKELU/w-d-xo.html all it needs is for enough to take responsibility by showing their support and things are put right. Plain and simple.
Evidence: FCO 30 1048.
Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) invoked in 2001, and ignored.
@D-Bunker-zv1bj yes it is.
@@annoyingbstard9407 shows how limited your understanding is then.
@user-xj2im1ep3o 1/The Common Law comes from the dome, (doom). A book of old rules and customs. Brought about by Alfred the Great. (Its what makes Britain great). Broken down they equate to 4 Laws only.
Out side of the Law, we have legislation, statutes, or acts, (Constitution Magna Carta 1215/ Legal) that would only have Lawful backing if consented to by the ppl after being made fully aware of the facts.
I think you should do a lawyer reacts type video to a UK "Freeman of the land"
He's done that one
the roudabout thing, I thought it was to say avoid going round the roundabout more than one full circle, make sure you know your exit and aim to get in first time.
What happens if a test case is presented and a precedent is set due to a decision made by the judge. Then a year later that case is reheard and they win the appeal. Is that precedent then repealed? If so, what happens to others convicted of the same offence and the precedent has been applied in their case on a subsequent date? Love the show as always.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you could easily point to the higher court (the appeal court) decision as the better precedent
More great content.. id love to have a video on the strength of 'context'...omission of context, or type of evidence that should be put forward as context, and of course is context hard or mitigation evidence?
No victim = no crime everything else is just ADMINISTRATION
Well you're entitled to you view. Act's, Statutes and Legislation are not 'laws'; they are man made instruments put in place through our Parliament, often with political or commercial self-interests at the heart of them. Common Law is supreme and one wonders what people used to do before all this 'legalise' came into being ie before Parliament was formed in the 13th century. In simple terms, Common Law or our inalienable rights cannot be changed though - Parliament often try to remove our rights and freedoms by invoking Acts, Statutes and Legislation and demanding we follow their new rules. Slavery is an example - how on earth did Parliament ever ignore this abomination for centuries until they finally passed an Act in 1833. It has always been unlawful and the courts could have acted at any time.
Problem is they risk losing their licence to practice if they promote or try to use common law so they dont promote common law.
@@flyhi2773 $$$ over justice. Hardly a moral code of ethics.
@@Steven-D-Allan Thats right. These courts and barristers arent in it for justice. Theyre all badly corrupted by money barristers maybe bullied into it by being threatened with having their licences revoked as they get told they can practice statutory law or common law but not both. And the money is in statutory law. Common law doesnt even need lawyers!! This is why theres no justice.
How was it always unlawful? Magna Carta legalised serfdom which is essentially slavery.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Living up to you name - LoL - it didn't legalise anything. It remains a treaty between two parties.
Yet filming in a court is illegal, but what about the building inside.
How can one judge let someone off for paedophilia or rape yet put someone in jail for what they say thats bad law
Instead off looking at the crime they look at the criminal
People are not "let off" they are found either innocent or guilty. It doesn't matter what the transgression is if you are found guilty then there will generally be a punishment, if you are innocent there won't be.
If Pedophiles get to high a sentence imagine what happens when Epstien and his cronis activities truly get exposed and who it will be serving those sentences. Its going to be full of the elites
@@kenjepson1908 when the sentence is stupid beyond belief for the crime then I consider that let off
Judges do not get to decide on the guilt or innocence of a person (at least for that sort of case). That's the job of the jury.
@@TheEulerID exactly jury finds them guilty judge let's them off
What's your thoughts on this ; Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury - which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
Would like to see a discussion on jury equity/jury nullification.
Specifically, can a defence, in a trial by jury, aim to convince the jury that the law itself in this case is unjust and that jury nullification is appropriate.
Can you please explain by laws inside Port inside of entire
Thank you!! 👏👏👏
Did you swear an oath to the Bar ? If so, is your loyalty to the Bar or to the client and justice ?
Could you expand on this, please: MANDATE meaning according to Black's Dictionary - a written command given by an authority to an agent (member of the public) / contract by which one person requests other people to agree voluntarily to a service. It only becomes effective when the mandatory agrees. On mandatory once you agree to do it, if you do not consent to the request, you are not obligated under the mandate to comply. Is there a difference between a mandate and a law?
i think there are many definitions of mandates even in a legal sense...also between the US and UK etc. I think your consent path is going down the supposed consent aspect often raised - BBB has confirmed before that consent in terms of laws is not an element (otherwise what drug smuggler would consult to the MDA 1971 etc)
This is also how I understand it
@@vman7765 this ties i think to all the freeman stuff etc on consent..no legal basis..if i am a professional criminal and dont consent to MDA 1971 and POCA 2002, they dont apply to me..rightttt!
I JUST IT AND HOW CAN HAVE ONE AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU 🙏
Why are all karl lentz comments being blocked?
how bout Karl Lentz and Michael O'Bernicia fire side chat? 😍
@@sarahstocks9828 not a problem this man needs to bring 100k of his buddies; judges, lawyers, attorneys just be a fair fight. Anytime, anyplace karl lentz is ready
Where does parliament get it's authority from?
I'll give you a clue... it's called "Her Majesty's Government".
What an odd question
@@superdan8286 can you point me to the source of this information?
@@LRDefender80 what an odd answer.
@@NOVAX4ALL what an odd retort
Hi could you look into educating your subs on taking back owner ship of their legal fiction and showing them how as living men and women can't be punished for code act and mandate violations that would be helpful info for them
Yes I do understand it
Thank you for this useful insight . Although I know you are a Barrister of E&W , I presume there are broad parallels with Scotland; also important differences.
I provided technical support to the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh over a number of years , and although not legally qualified , came to feel that I ought to have pursued a career in either law or linguistics, rather than engineering , both of which I felt drawn to and an aptitude for later in life . Now academic , given my age of 63 , but I was exposed to a lot of legal process so do have a lot of respect for and interest in law ; with perhaps a healthy smattering of disrespect for instances where the law can very occasionally be an ass !
My understanding Scotland has a mixed system unlike England's common law system .
I had someone a week or two back, trying to tell me statutes were not law.
County court decisions being extremely persuasive was the reason for the banks doing their best not to let an unfair charges case get into court.
It's a sovereign citizen idea
@@truth.speaker One is either Sovereign or citizen, never both.
Anything that enters a County court is a commercial contract. All bank accounts are commercial contract. A bank will always do their best to avoid validating the contract, for they must acknowledge Crown property in the identity they use for the account name.
Citizenship is a commercial contract with the Crown.
@@joe-bloggs. You claim citizenship is a commercial contract. What proof do you have of this?
I know that in America you have "personal injury" lawyers, "copyright" lawyers etc - is it common to have lawyers specialising that much into one specific area?
Absolutely
Can you please do a video on unervisal law.@@BlackBeltBarrister
Blackbelt B...thank you.
So in a way civil law is the bare bones of the legal system and common law flesh' it out. For a simple example civil law says that punching someone is generally illegal which gives the basis for the charge and common law tells the judge how to apply that law fairly given the specific circumstances of the case so whilst that punch may have been illegal, common law may suggest that given the facts it wouldn't be fair to give the guilty party the harshest punishment available under that specific civil law and instead suggest a more appropriate sentence based on the ruling of similar cases in the past.
If that makes sense? Sort of like civil law says yes it's illegal or no it's not and common law tells the judge how to deal with the specific nuances of the case.
No. Civil and criminal law are entirely different. Simply put, you can go to jail for criminal law but not for civil law.
@@LRDefender80 He says at the very beginning that criminal law is different to common and civil law that's why I didn't mention criminal law in my comment.
@@beardedveteran7234 but you’re talking about someone punching someone. That’s criminal, not civil law.
👍 Cheers for the insight
You talk about common versus civil law, whilst mentioning that there is also criminal law. You say that common law applies to the interpretation of both civil and criminal law. As a non lawyer, I would understand the term "statute law" to be a generic term that encompasses both branches; is this correct? If so, why did you talk about civil, as opposed to statute law in this video?
Correct.
So! The answer always begins “it depends”! The true answer by any lawyer or consultant! If the response does not start with this phrase they must be lying!
When I started dating my wife, I was studying law. I used to drive her mad because every time she asked me a question about *anything*, I always started my answer with "it depends"!
if acts are given the force of law by consent how do we give or take consent away?
i think he has already dealt with that before to say that its not correct. Otherwise what drug smuggler consents to the Customs and Excise Management Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. PIRA tried that angle in another way by refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of British courts over them as in their minds 'soldiers'. Didnt benefit them much
I find this an interesting philosophical discussion. Is it possible to add to the potential defences of an Act but the Judge? Does a Statue have any depth until a Judge has made a finding on it etc. Thanks Daniel, another interesting video.
@blackbeltbarrister any idea why murder is still a common law offence? Surely by now Parliament ought to have passed a law codifying the common law?
Numerous acts have served to modify some aspects of the common law crime of murder.
Video suggestion
High speed tailgating on motorways
@All About Britain as long as you slow down slowly
Regarding the "court" authority question, it comes from the monarch. Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty - they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people - don’t forget that.
We have a constitutional monarchy, so very little power in reality. More a tourist attraction.
Government is the seat of political power in UK
Asked him are we all equal? That we have no one above us other than our creator?
Yes the legal society created the titles of citizen defendants prosecutors judges
But ask did they ever create man one single man any man in which they believe they control
You only get to control that which you create
@@dshe8637 without PEOPLE THERE IS NO """"POWER""""💪💪💪🏻💪🏻💪🏾💪🏾
That is not true. They do not swear allegiance to the queen and are entirely independent. The crown does select who becomes judges. The prosecution works for the crown and represents the crown in court. The prosecution are also independent from government.
Explain legalese
Injury harm loss
Codified law!!! Don’t you mean maritime
I need help
I’m foreign and not good English.
Also I’m a modern slavery victim.
I’m not getting the appropriate support.
How can I get in touch with you?
Writing will be very difficult or even impossible.
Please help.
I’m being harass, stalk, spy and, even hacked by the police.
I do have videos and phone calls recording.
Please help.
There is no ‘law’ in Civil Law, it should be called contract & agreements. No man or corporate legal entity can buy Authentic Common Law, unlike Civil Law, plus there is no incentive for barristers to work in Common Law.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj Really?
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj A driving licence is a contract that is why there are two parts: the licensee and the licensor. The Terms & Conditions of contract are the highway code. Breach the speed limit/contract agreement and pay the fine. The licence document/identity is the property of the Crown and they hold a legal title to revoke the rights of the beneficiary of the driving licence. Stated in the Terms & conditions, the highway code. There is no law, there is only a contract.
Statuary law /contract is subject to citizen status. Conversely, common law isn’t subject to citizen status.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj The driving licence document / identity is the property of the Crown. With the signature of the beneficiary, it forms the agreement/contract. That fulfills consideration and mutuality between the Crown and the beneficiary. No force was applied on either party that makes it a mutual agreement /contract. Hence Licensee / licensor.
In a common law court, citizen status isn’t relevant, for the common law court questions the man / woman to account. But statuary law can only work through equity courts they can only process citizens. A citizen is a legal entity with an N/I number. The N/I number is the property of the Crown. Citizenship is a contract with the Crown where one agrees to be the identity created by the Crown with benefits.
@@D-Bunker-zv1bj When one registers to vote, there is an agreement on that document one must sign. That is the contract with the Crown. The registered name on the election register document may look like yours, but that name is the property of the Crown. Anyone who completes and registers must use an ASL. (American Sign Language) Standardise from so-called Dog-Latin. Dog-Latin is really only corrupt Latin grammar. The driving licence/document is the property of the Crown and so is the name identity printed on the licence via the department of DVLA. The Crown links the NI number to the name printed on the driving licence and the standard British passport for their benefit. Crown created it and maintain it, therefore the NI number is their property.
@user-xj2im1ep3o Just making a statement does not qualify your claim. There is no legislation derived from man that can claim jurisdiction of common law. For common law is part of our birth title, no man can own it!
Yeah
Civil law equals contract law !
How can one man make a law over another man when all are equal under the law?
@D-Bunker-zv1bj Well that did not answer the question but never mind ;/
Because the lawmakers have democratic mandate, meaning they have the consent of the governed.
What did Jesus say about lawyers? Also did you read the Book of Judges in the Bible? And how much you know about natural law? Having a black belt comes with a lot of work!
Think that you should talk to William Keyte and Ruth Skolmli, then you might be qualified to talk about common law.
I always say if you don't cause anybody any arm injury or loss everything should be ok..
Which would be part of common law wouldn't it?
All the rest are just at acts and statues... Which we need to make society work.. There's way too many though...
Yes that's why some statues have been pulled down or otherwise removed.
No mention about the UK gov being a corporation and this is important, common law is for sovereign beings , and corporation law applies to citizens, people, persons,and is by consent only,corporation policies are by our consent only, the UK government is as we speak a bankrupt corporation listed on companies house. Governments world wide went bankrupt in 1933, and set up unlawfully corporations to extract monies to pay themselves back from the chattel........cattle.....us.....its population.... via taxation. ...Birth certification bonds,.....marriage certification,...fines....taxation ....parking tickets turned into bonds and traded on the stock exchange.....we are a commodity.....but corporation policies are just that.,..nothing more than recommendations only that need the peoples consent........ever noticed through this plandemic how governments put the emphasis on businesses to promote their policies of mask mandates and lock downs and the jabs....they cannot enforce it because we need to consent to it in admiralty law......which sadly we have actually done since this lot started....fear...coercion and bullying business has been there weapons, there so called laws do not exist......sorry.......we from birth have been duped....... Your children belong to the government corporation via you handing them over to the state and registering them at birth.....this certificate is bonded and traded on the stock exchange,.......get a copy of your cert and ask any broker what your birth cert fund is worth.....Mort..gages are securities and sold on to investment funds by the banks and traded on the stock exchange, leaving the banks with no I.Owe.You and no liability...... But a pay cheque for securitising your bank mortgage I.o.u.....taxes are unlawful and temporary every year they start again on the 5th of April....by our consent only...don't be fooled......The UK corporation is a scam in itself, we have more power as sovereign beings than we have been told.....courts work from corporations that allow corrupt judges token act decisions that are by an interpretation of what they see as a fit ruling in there opinion....... Legalese was a vocabulary designed by corporations to confuse all judges of common law origion into being confused, its a corporation language.........basically corruption in a so called legal binding rule book, but corporation policies are no more than bluffing the populations into believing its actual law..........
🤣
💤💤💤💤
Ask yourself in your lifetimes how much GOVERNING do you really need when you wake up every morning (you had a governess when you were a baby but that wasn't a lifetime position, was it🤔?) who do you call up to ask what you should or should not do everyday?
i the man who donated several times before
@@Barbarapape your crazy if you think I'm going to ask [wo]man for her opinion. I only need god.
Many daily actions are governed by law, you just don't need to think about it unless something goes wrong.
For example, you go into a shop and buy something, that is a contract governed by law. If the item turns out to be faulty, you have certain rights.
@@willg6551 a believer in the Christian god who believes in lifetimes plural is a heretic. Also believing in a single god is, according to Christianity, Islam and Judaism also heresy, the bible acknowledges that the roman-Greek pantheon is very real, but, you know, some peoples brains melt when they read that bible passage and it’s always difficult to watch. Your brain already melted, clearly, so it’s ok
i man created in the image of g0d
@@knowitall4567 and. What's your point, [wo]man in the reflection of man. [wo]man are incompetent, [wo]man needs man end of story.
Geneva bible : Thus God created the man in his image: in the image of God created he him: he created them male and female.
Genesis 1:26 This image and likeness of God in man is expounded, Eph. 4:24, where it is written that man was created after God in righteousness and true holiness, meaning by these two words, all perfection, as wisdom, truth, innocence, power, etc.
law they just make it up as they going along ,it not what you do it who you are , you may have a very good case but you still lose. law is social engineering thats all .unless you have alot of money -pay to win !
#skill
Re- philosophy
Is the ultimate objective of the legal society to have man BE(gin) self-governance or ÄaÑ ONE WORLD ORDER in which results in ASSIMILATION, of man(kind) (in)voluntarily entering into the COLLECTIVE?
None of that literal nonsense, the law society ultimate objective is to make sure the lawyers they represent don’t get shafted by someone else, whilst simultaneously making sure they reach a certain professional standard.
notice
Rules of Court
in
the smith court
1. Only a man or woman can appear
2. Man or woman must swear in under oath or affirmation first .
3. only verifiable answers.
4. if a superior claim comes before said court
a copy to be handed. to the clerk and to i .
5. if another claim that creates controversy then move to trial by jury as soon requires no later than 2 weeks.
6. if no man or woman appears before said court. Then i order the case be discharge in it entirety
7. No legal person or legal language to be spoken. Only plain common english to be spoken man on man.
8. No defendants are allowed in said court only man or woman allowed to appear in said court
9. Only man or woman with firsthand knowledge of the wrong and be sworn in under oath or affirmation first
10. No plaintiff; solicitor; attorney; Mr; Mrs or any other tilts can appear in said court only man or woman can appear
And so on.
“Lawful” and “Legal” are entirely different realms.
Omnes Homines Aut Liberi Sunt Aut Servi
Nope
@BlackBeltBarrister he's objectively correct and you're a liar benefiting from the legal scam system.
THIS WILL BE FUNNY. SO YOUR THINK IT WAS LEGAL FOR FATHERHOOD TO BE ACTIVATED THROUGH CIVIL LAW WITH NO COMMON LAW PROTECTION. LETS WATCH THE BANTER!!! LOL LOL
shill
Kind of a moot point since we subscribed to the Holy Roman EU.