Equity, Common Law, Legislation and The UK Constitution 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.พ. 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
AI not good for the image
agree
Especially if its incorrect information as well, Like it is in this video. They don't know what they hell they are talking about.
I have pointed out mistakes they have made before, but they didn't want to know, which is strange considering they claim to be open, honest and willing to learn.
@@JohnSmith-vy4lhwhat were the mistakes?
@@zkovacs01 The origins of the English common law comes from the Molmutine laws round 400BC.
They are saying that foreign invaders created our common law 1400 years later. And they are also mistaken about the bill of right which is a statutory document.
@@JohnSmith-vy4lh I was gonna ask you to provide link for your theories but YT doesn't allow it
Why the AI
yes, its really offputting
Excellent 🎉
Uk hasn’t got a constitution…. It’s English constitution… British hasn’t got a constitution either…
Lex mercatoria (from Latin for "merchant law"), often referred to as "the Law Merchant" in English, is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe[disputed - discuss] during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts
Law merchant definition What does Law merchant mean?
The law merchant or lex mercatoria (the law of the merchant) is part of the law of England that relates to the customs of trade and the law of commerce that have become incorporated in the common law.
The law merchant has at least five different meanings: (1) an independent system of legal principles applying to merchants which is derived in part from the Roman law and native custom; (2) part of the jus gentium of international law; (3) a type of custom acknowledged by the courts without proof; (4) that which is equivalent to current mercantile practice, or the changeable usage of merchants everywhere; (5) part of the common law relating to mercantile affairs. Halsbury's Laws of England, Custom and Usage Volume 12(1) Reissue PARA 662. The law merchant is generally equated with commercial law and involves the laws relating to bills and notes, bills of exchanges, insurances and all mercantile contracts [Cf Christian's note to 1 Bl Com 75]. Merely carrying on business that is convenient is not the same as a practice of creating rights
John Locke worried that the common law was bad for business. Although he recognized the political importance of common law institutions such as juries, he also thought that the cumbersome procedures of English courts might hamper economic development in England and its colonies. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which Locke helped draft in 1669, tried to reconcile these competing political and economic concerns. Although the Constitutions guaranteed “Freemen” a right to trial by jury, the document also provided for specialized judges in port towns to “try cases belonging to [the] law-merchant.” These commercial judges would allow merchants to settle their disputes “as shall be most convenient for trade,” rather than by the expensive formality of the common law.
The Law Merchant and the Common Law Before 1700
IN 1845 a master of English commercial law wrote that there was “no part of the history of English law more obscure than that connected with the maxim that the law merchant is part of the law of the land.” Since then there have been detailed studies of the medieval law merchant and of the later development of English mercantile law, but the precise status of the law merchant in England and the nature of the process by which it supposedly became fused with the common law remain as obscure as they were in 1845. The obscurity begins with the very concept of the “law merchant,” which has been differently understood by different writers and continues to be used in widely divergent senses. Some have regarded it as a distinct and independent system of legal doctrine, akin in status to Civil or Canon law, and perhaps derived from Roman law. Others have supposed it to be a particular aspect of natural law, or the universal ius gentium, and as such akin to international law.
How was lex mercatoria enforced?
Enforcement: Disputes under Lex Mercatoria were resolved through merchant courts emphasising equity and fairness. Modern systems often involve formalized international arbitration bodies or rely on domestic court systems for enforcement.31 Aug 2021
What is the concept of lex mercatoria?
Lex mercatoria was a mixture of official laws and established mercantile customs and institutions, of official courts and quasi-private local tribunals: "bun- dles of public privileges and private practices, public statutes and private customs sheltered under the umbrella concept of merchant law by their association ...
Not a fan of AI videos sorry
You can still spot the AI really puts me off watching. HAte it
Yes, its very sad - I can stand listening to AI
Sadly all the hard work put into the great information is lost by this delivery.
The increase in subscribers on this video tells us a different story!
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel I’m sure Marc’s detailed, interactive and in person (via zoom) interview with Richard Vorbes has nothing to do with that 🤷♀️
@@mattmill30 However, this would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water! It’s the truth we’re all seeking to understand for ourselves. No one person has all the pieces to the puzzle. Egos need to be put aside for truth to be truly uncovered and wisdom to start to grow.
Each video has it's own subscription data.
That's a blatent lie.
Please show where we have said "we do not care about comments".
I'll give you a couple of hours.
Adam’s apple not moveing
Can I ask a simple question Please.. IF the COUNCIL can make multiple liability orders by spreadsheet can we join together and make multiple claims of asking for proof of the liability to pay council tax. ? I.e Thousands of us acting together.?
@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629 don't be stupid.
@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629 Don't be so stupid. i have signed up to nothing.. So this stupidity is just ridiculous. I know what AL is ., so F OFF.
GOODNESS me how you lot must be worried.
Oh wow using a robot ..this gave me the creeps..wrong move guys….not for me..
Wrong move in your opinion, the increase in subscribers tells a different story.
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel When are your cases in Liverpool that you want to test out your theories? I've also got a case in a while in June. If you wanted to use that to try out something it's say road traffic charge
@ MARK. I wish to point out and disect. Dunn and Bradstreet states all those registered ..."Including" .. if this is to be taken serious we need to recognise the Language used alsovtgw finite meani ngs of those word for accuracy. Is all that is written upon DnB to be taken as English or legalese for just these 2 languages alone generate more ambiguity if not otherwise expressed. SAME with Gov website. So to lazer in, this is most relevent and critical if we are to accept a duck is a duck so to speak.
Actually the common law origins was derived from the Molmutine laws around 400BC. Jews who partly funded the Norman army, followed soon after the Normans win and they brought the Shetar law with them, also known as the jewish gage or in old English the star.
They was allowed to use usury and take peoples lands.
You obviously need a lesson on English History.
They obviously don't know what they are talking about. They laughably say question everything, well they need to question themselves lol.
@@JohnSmith-vy4lh They are two of the most arrogant people I’ve ever come across. But they’ve lost the plot completely now. Enough already with this nonsense.
@@mattmill30 I concur. Rarely seen such a level of delusional denial.
That depends on what definition you use for 'common law' . Stare decisis' let the decision stand goes way back as you say. The thing is what stood then might not be true. We need to determine what we want and take what is best from the lessons of our forefathers and build on that solid foundation...
@@marchorn466 The basis of the ancient common law is, No law can unman a man or uncall a calling.
1099? 1100? 1101?
Means nothing
A good start BUT. there is no practical advice how to use our common law and Bill of Rights Act in our courts. Here is what I have learned from practical use in their (corporate) courts. Common law and stated cases can overcome statute (parliament) law. This was recently proved during lockdown where some who accepted that they had to obey statute law ended up in prison. Others who knew that the lockdown law was against the Bill of Rights and used that constitutional law had their cases dropped. I think Peacekeepers are well meaning but they seem to have no practical experience of the courts. Their main interest seems to be making videos. I would be pleased to be wrong in my assessment and would welcome a link from them to share my experience with them which will help others. I have twice stopped police using court warrants giving authority to enter homes. The real law can be used if one knows how.
A good comment @john timbrell, but would youtube allow a practical provable remedy?
Have you been successful in getting charges discontinued in magistrates court
@@iansurman2299 In the Crown Court and in the Royal courts of Justice in London where a judge 'phoned the hospital to order the release of a mental patient sectioned to stop her exposing big pharma's corruption. Most cases can be stopped before entering courts because they do not want the publicity that would occur if the case is heard in a court. This way more people would know what peacekeepers tell you. It is such a pity that peacekeepers do not learn from my experience and inform others.
Life doesn't have to be this complicated. Stop it.
Sadly this looks ridiculous. Lost all credibility
The increase in subscribers tells us a different story!
Way off beam. No mention of 1215 which is ridiculous.
No mention of the Molmutine laws 400BC.
As we have explained numerous times, we are not using 1215. It's our choice what we use. We will stick to 1297 thanks.
The 1215 Magna Carta was a peace treaty between King John and the barons, while the 1297 Magna Carta became part of England's statute law, establishing it as a foundational document of English law.
Why do we need to go back that far when we have enough information already. It's our choice what we do and don't use and your choice what you use.
We have no reason to use 1215 and our choice not to.
The 1215 Magna Carta was a peace treaty between King John and the barons, while the 1297 Magna Carta became part of England's statute law, establishing it as a foundational document of English law.
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel Because our past is our future as Eric Blair aka George Orwell explained. And under English law, the older a law is the more authority it has, which is opposite to Scottish law, but you knew that, right!
Good information but i'd rather hear it from a human being rather than an automation.
Absolute tosh.
I think they are getting confused. The Norman most certainly did not bring the common law with them. They did however bring Jews with them, and they brought the Shetar law with them.
The roots of our common law started 1500 years before the Normans rocked up.
What no reference to show us tut tut.
Why do we need to go back further, we just don't, why....
The common law originated in the late 11th century, following the Norman Conquest of 1066. It continued to develop primarily through judicial decisions until the late 19th century. The term "common law" referred to the Anglo-Norman legal system that superseded and replaced Anglo-Saxon law in England. It was not based on written laws but on judicial decisions and precedents. The common law evolved daily and immediately as courts issued precedential decisions, and all parties in the legal system were responsible for up-to-date knowledge[1][2][3]. The 16th century saw considerable change in the law, but the common law was already well established by that time[4].
Citations:
[1] British History, 2: The Origins of Common Law users.ssc.wisc.edu/~rkeyser/?page_id=625
[2] Common law - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
[3] English law - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law
[4] Common law - 16th Century, Revolution, England www.britannica.com/topic/common-law/The-16th-century-revolution
[5] Common law | Definition, Origins, Development, & Examples www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
A fantastic and valuable comment.
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannelOh dear , you've never heard of the Molmutine laws or the Shetar law have you?.
And the reason that you have never heard of these laws is
because it has been hidden by subversives who don't want us to know our wonderful history which gives us indigenous people strength and authority.
What you are quoting as references are largely written by these subversive, the encyclopedia Britannica is Jewish owned..
You are getting the law from Gov. uk, and naively reading it and thinking that is the law in black and white, although you complain how bent the government are.
Gov.uk only has the very basics of law and does very little applied cross reference and is ambiguous.
A famous judge once said, " it would take 400 years just to read all the laws , let only understand them".
Statutes largely take away our rights. They give us rights(which was ours already) with one hand and take it away with the other. That is corporate statute law.
I still haven't received an apology from Lance who mislead the viewers.
He said the bill of rights is a smaller more concise document than the declaration of rights, which is completely wrong, which shows his lack of knowledge and willingness to make things up to cover his ignorance.
The declaration of rights is the document of the people evoked by a convention of the people.
The BILL of rights is the statutory version of the declaration made by parliament, which is a legal fiction. The clue is in the title (bill).
As you will find in all common law documents, the declaration is smaller than the statutory version , because it says what it means and means what it says.
You can't understand the our laws without knowing our history. We have a wonderful history that goes back far beyond the Romans who subverted our history.
Get back to me when you have researched the aforementioned laws.
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel Yeah you have looked at the establish narrative, now you need to look beyond that to move your education farther. You can look at as many statutes as you like, you will never find the words compassion, love or man in any of them.
I think you need to go to court a few times to see how they operate.
They use administrative courts. That's why you will never receive justice as the common man understands it.
The roots of our common law goes back thousands of years.
What a hideous presentation....worst you have done? ???.is this AI???
Get Lance to do it next time 🪄
Hideously bad. They’ve lost the plot completely now. Enough already with this nonsense.
Now you are making things up that did not get said. Why are you wasting your time here when you could be using somewhere else I wonder. You must be really bored.
@@mattmill30 and how does that equate into your claim we don't care about comments?
@@PeaceKeepersOfficialChannel You don’t care about the content of comments. You’ve made a huge mistake behaving the way you are.