Since removal of the right to trial by jury can only be seen as a perversion of the course of justice. By the justice system that trumpets it's virtue world wide.
@@amandadoubleu9748 But otherwise not. A constable will profess total lack of awareness of any such thing, when it is put to him. So the officer's oath of office is another corrupt fraud on the people. Relying on their ignorance of their rights and entitlements from the police.
Exactly don’t try it. It doesn’t work just look on here if these sovereign types getting jailed. There was a guy In Manchester who got jailed for not paying council tax.
Very good interview. Once you embark on this path you very soon realise that it is a requirement that you detach from ALL legal agreements. The key to leaving the matrix is to operate under Gods law at all times, In every now moment.
I've just been saying exactly that to myself. If you don't want to be part of the system refuse to take part in it. Don't give your name, anything . Do no harm and go about your business. Simple
Thanks Richard great show ❤🙏🏼 I had 11 police officers including 2 Sargents turn up at my door at midnight looking for my nephew who doesn’t live with me doesn’t have the same surname and doesn’t live in the uk and never has never lived in the UK, I wouldn’t open my front door to them as I new they couldn’t be trusted and they would of entered my property under PACE looking for an alleged offender. My nephew has never ever been in trouble with the police and 3 weeks later they decided he committed no crime?? Motto of the story is be careful what you post on social media and be very careful about what you purchase on line as they are using sting operations . we are not a police state and they need reminding they serve the public.🙏🏼
Yes. The police do act on the modus operandi of the Gestapo. Ya'll have to recognise, understand and accept that plain fact. And proceed accordingly. The experience above stands in substantiation.
In the heart of Britannia's isle, Where traditions span a legal mile, Common law, a dance of precedent, A legal ballet, ageless and inherent. From ancient scrolls to modern quills, A mosaic of justice spills, No statutes penned with ink of gold, Yet principles in stories told. In courts where wigs of wisdom sway, Precedents pave the righteous way, For cases old and cases new, The past informs what judges do. No rigid code, no written creed, Yet justice flows with measured speed, A river winding through the years, Guided by the legal pioneers. Fairness whispers in the halls, Where common law in silence sprawls, Equality, the guiding star, No matter who you truly are. A jury of peers, a solemn vow, Deciding fate, then taking a bow, In common law, the people stand, The power rests in every hand. So in the realm of common lore, Where judgments echo evermore, A living, breathing legal art, In the beating common law heart.
Thank you Richard and thank you Dean for driving 5 hours to share your amazing knowledge. Those 5 hours reached 2000 miles (Cyprus). Great broadcast and chemistry between you both. Keep up the great work you both do.
Thank you Dean & Richard, I have learned so much today, I am sorry to admit, I have been to court many times due to my stupidity when I was much younger, the only times I was found not guilty was on the occasions I represented my self, as a matter of fact in a traffic court, the judge asked me whilst in the dock, why I equiped myself with a soliciter, as the soliciter had let me down continuesly, I did a far better job of representing myself. I only wish I knew half what you had informed me of today, even since that occasion I seem to find more and more reasons not to trust soliciters , they are in no way there to assist you, they are there to help the courts get you through there system as quick as possible, help you bah , what ever gave anyone that impression !
it is easy, "learn" without a victim claiming injury,,, there has been no crime committed, if you have an invitation to appear in a magistrates court, most of the time it becomes a administrative court, ie: Contract Court only that prosecutes you for braking the rules/terms and conditions on the contract, ie no victim, Crown court is where common law takes place,,, ie there will be a victim of real harm loss or fraud, STAY OUT OF ANY ADDMINISTATIVE COURT, right to the Magistrates court, for them to prove they hold Jurisdiction to prosecute via proving there is a contract, that you have consented to, to allow the court the Jurisdiction, find under freedom of information via giving them 14 days to comply, if you would like a chat about it more i have an email, let me know 👍
11:35 I had a problem with the authorities. I welcomed them to my court, showed them the 5 clearly visible recording devices and contracted with them that the only language to be used was plain English, no jargon, Legalese and the only words and definitions that can be used were those in the copy of this Oxford English dictionary on my desk. Their previous cockyness was gone and they had not one ounce of strength as I believe that they could not use their words/swords against me.
@@william6223studentdad is a Muppet, he trolls Richards comments all the time take a look through how many comments he makes on other peoples views and comments he's a weirdo and lives with his mum in the back bedroom 😂
Absolutely brilliant interview Richard, thank you. Thank you so much to Dean for covering this important topic, really interesting. Important decisions must remain in the hands of the many and not the few.
There is so much misunderstanding of The Common Law swamping the internet! The Common Law originated in England. England was comprised of a number of Kingdoms years ago. Prior to The Great Charter (Magna Carta), a Common Law was created in England which was the best Law from all the English Kingdoms. The common law. It really is that simple. Examples of The Common Law today are Treason and Murder. There is a Common Law Court in London in The Courts of Justice. However as we know The British State is subverting The English Common Law and The English Constitution!
@@missmouth84 We haven’t. There is a huge rise in understanding of our history, our Constitution and importantly how we were occupied by The British on 1st May 1707. I believe the future is looking good as we head towards Independence.
What ever happened to Tim in court his case was basically thrown out . If it went to trial by jury it could set president for future similar cases . These cases need to go before a jury to change the system they control the system by not allowing the law to judge the system they have put into place to repress the people .
Thanks a bunch to Dean and Richard for enlightening us to the ammunition we have at hand to stand against a system designed against us and for providing the platform to bring such information to light respectively. 👍💪💪
Been watching a few of your videos (incl bb palaver, which this video is obv a round about way of responding indirectly). This video got me subscribed keep the learning going. I do like how you are learning just as we all are and are intellectually exploring opposition to the madness.👍
In a magistrates court, it is the Clerk of the Court who takes the modern role of the judge and advises the bench as to law and limitation. So even here the application of law is or can be corrupted.
Not obviously but he clearly limits the decisions and questioning by always maintaining the legal, not the lawful, aspects of the preceedings. I've been present at thousands of cases and the degree of control is absolute and is always after the law.@@StudentDad-mc3pu
No one ever openly provides an opposing view on the law. That is the role of solicitors and only then within the rules of evidence and proceedure. And to Andrew Davies, I'm second generation retired copper. How many cases do you think someone sees over a lifetime? I would be interested in the evidence behind your comments?@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629
Very interesting conversation indeed. It would be fascinating to have a guest on that could explain the Magna Carta from a law perspective compared to a lot of made up things the law today uses for their own convenience, also what one could use from the Magna Carta that would leave the so called laws of today in tears and tantrums , would be nice to have things up the people’s sleeve for once rather than being bamboozled by these laws that are not truly constitutional.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Something apparently changed in the US in 1964 with a change to 'Unidroit-Law' following JFK's CIA Asassination where it was previously Babylonian/military/law.Also in 1973 Australian pm Gough William signed/betrayed his country to the 'Unidroit treaty of Rome' giving mineral rights to a foreign entity headquartered in Rome (not Vatican) also, all lawyers swear oaths to Crown City of London which was eventually usurped by the 'House Of Rothschild'. Therefore, having infiltrated the Vatican (usual financial seizure playbook) by using their illuminati-agent-Adam Weishaupt (German Jesuit professor of Canon Law) we can safely say 'All roads lead to Rothschild rather than Rome ? The Jesuit/Khazarin Mafia tag-team are effectively the very definition,quintessence of our planets gangrenous 'Cabal'.
@@earlgrey691 Nope, none of this is real especially the part about lawyers swearing oaths. Now lawyers, including Barristers swear oaths. The Rothschild link is part of a nasty anti-Semitic racist trope, please stop repeating it.
11:35 I think it was Rob Menard that said in court someone kept saying in court that they did not understand certain words and asked which dictionary and which definition they were using. This really frustrated the prosecution and you can guess that this kept going on and on. 😂
Im just halfway through this video, and i am on this big time... I have a lot i would like to discuss with this guy 🙂 as i think we could really push this and fill some gaps in. As his statutes i can fill the meaning in for him and definitions also a lot of productive discussion
Great clear information - thank you for all your hard work for bringing clarity to we the Soverign living men and women ..."Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, all things pass away, God never changes. Patience obtains all things. They who have God lack nothing. God alone is enough." St. Teresa of Avila's prayer.
Thanks Dean and Richard , interesting stuff , in a council tax court case I think I lost because the judge only asked me one question , " is that your name?" I said my name and that was the end of the whole thing , guilty. Tricia Lindsay New York attorney did an amazing speech couple of years ago on UA-cam freedom convoy USA , this stuff like "I exercise my right to remain silent" etc is superb but the time and effort and resources to do it are not available to a lot of people busy trying to survive the relentless economic and controlling action they are faced with , therefore how do we get the people able to make changes take action? The 1972 changes were news to me , thanks again , I hope progress is possible on this trajectory
(Heads up I copied this from my comment.) It doesn’t work! Don’t try this stuff it will get you in trouble. A guy in Manchester tried to not pay his council tax and got jailed. An “Act” is a formal body of LAW. Look at all the channels to debunk and debate and just exposes these sovereign citizens idiots trying this crap. We need more man made laws to draw the line or fill the in grey areas. Say no eye witnesses, a person has died and the accused said it was self defence. Who says it was or wasn’t murder? How do we stop criminals? Someone goes into your garden to get a ball back and you hit them. It’s your property, and some say you can do as you like. But is it right or moral? And who gets to decide what you do and don’t do on your property? Should the person get permission first? And if they can’t make contact what do they do? I’ve spoke with many people on this subject and the state lovers make more sense. We can vote laws in and out or change them. Also everyone is brainwashed and likes nanny state laws correct? So they will judge you. All MSM watchers? (Well I’ve met some who make good points for strict laws and who say it’s not down to being conditioned to living in a nanny state, but can’t remember the conversation.) Society need us to work together to work well. Fact. Edit, check out “Arty’s Cooperate fiction” he has a reward for anyone who can prove this just works. So far no winners. He is open to debates and reacts to a lot of these sovereign types. The other issue is these sovereigns use old and cherry picked information. Word definitions change, this is what they get wrong. I think a lot of the right to drive types get this wrong. (They are sitting in a “Drivers seat” but claim they aren’t a “Driver”…) Laws change and get updated, or over rides by other laws.
As far as I have looked into remaining in the private this maybe achieved through replying to court proceedings directly to the interested parties in their personal capacity rather than by replying to the court in its public standing.
I feel one of the primary issues, as a natural being is the fact a passport is ‘owned’ by the sovereign state not the personage named present in the document. We need a document that is ‘owned’ by the personage, possibly protected by the state as an ‘employee’. I would like to know what you, Richard could interview a ‘friend’ on this issue. Thanks, love your podcast. 🙏🏾
That was a fascinating interview. I’m still none the wiser about who Dean of Buxton is so some further information would be helpful. My interpretation is that Dean is a man who has been on the wrong side of the Dock and has gone on to research in detail what the authority of the court is and how procedures work that make you subject to court authority. I found Dean’s video on UA-cam, Common Law in 60 seconds (5:40) that is genuinely helpful and easy to follow. As ever with layman interpretations of law I’m not sure how consistent Dean’s beliefs are with the real world, but it sounds pretty good. There are certainly some conflicts of his description of ‘Common Law’ with that of ICLR and its place in the English legal system,. Even the Black Belt and has a video on “The Stawman, Common law and more”. We heard an example of how Just Stop Oil had a case against them dropped in a Trial by Jury situation. I think Black Lives Matter similarly had a case over turned for throwing Colston’s statue into the Bristol docks. It would be great to have some more examples of how authority of the court is overturned by not complying with court procedure. Thank you.
Dean was my former partner. Like many of us, he was inspired to research after receiving Injustice from ‘The System’ He has learned through a combination of research + trialling via standing in his Common Law Rights within the Courts. In truth this is the only way to learn. LOVE Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVECommon law is also natural law it coincides with biblical law! They (TPTB) have changed our court systems to appease their own agenda. Thats why we never get any justice. God bless you Rachel and Dean, going to watch this video later. ❤
Good talk. Statute still overrides CL which is the basis of Anglo Saxon law, but not law in itself. Common Law is used by Judges in the High Court as points of law regarding precedents.
@user-xj2im1ep3o I've seen it happen- self representation and 'common law ' representation. I'm not saying they're not well intentioned, but the Judge threatened to charge the person with contempt. Unfortunately, it's wiser to defeat them using their own rules. Common Law can be very vague.
Some confusion over the various meanings of the word "private". When you set up a limited company as an individual then that company is "privately owned" as in individuals and not the public.
"When you set up a limited company as an individual then that company is "privately owned"" You "register" it - so you register it to companies house, who own it.
@@50somethinglawyer You know nothing. You register a car - it belongs to the DVLA - you are the registered keeper, not owner. Anything registered belongs to something. You register your child - the government can then "call up" the child for war - you are the pair rent - renting it. Go learn something instead of thinking you know it all, and talking out your backside. Useless troll.
@user-xj2im1ep3o " the registered keeper in most cases is also the owner. Parents don't rent their children." NO. Look at your Car Registration Certificate. It says you are the "keeper" - NOT OWNER. They tax you to put it on the road. If you don't pay the tax, they can take the car off the road - you are the keeper,,not owner. If you drive your car with no tax, what happens? The government sales people drive behind you with a blue light, and pull you over. They can take the car off the road, and store it until you pay the tax; that's because you don't own it. You only keep it. Otherwise, if you were driving a car, and the police pulled you over, and took it off you, in law that would be theft. The DVLA owns the registered car plate - you are licensed to drive it. You are the keeper. You are contracted to drive it. That's why, if you park somewhere they don't want you to park, they can take it - it's not an act of theft, as you are only licensed to drive it, and keep it. Parents have to register their child through a birth certificate. The owners of the cerificate don't want to cloth and feed it - so they let you have it. If you mistreat the child, the authorities can legally take it from you. That's why you are "contracted" to look after it well. There is a difference between law and legal. They are not the same. The Road Traffic ACT - it's an ACT - not real law. That's why they say you are policyed (policy) by consent. Po Li see force enforce the acts. Police Force - they have twisted a policy officer with a constable to confuse you. That's why - you park your car on double yellow lines - the policy force can issue a ticket - they are working for corporations - all to do with contracts. Every policy force is registered as a police authority on Dun and Bradstreet. - A BUSINESS. Open your eyes.
You don't register private trusts. You create a proxy trust and claim back your security bond certificate via a securities agreement. That's your gold bar. They hold it, therefore they are the securities holder, the custodian the owner of the estate. You just need proof in the public via a lien.
Most illuminating! One question - does ‘after the law’ refer to time or as I initially took it to mean ‘following the law’? The latter sounds more legalese to me. A summary of Dean’s eight points at the end would have been good.😊
I've sent you a few emails talking about commonlaw I use it click on the s view the channel I've done everything this man has done if you what to know more I'd be happy to talk on your show
Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, also spelled Bushell's Case, is a famous English decision on the role of juries. It established beyond question the independence of the jury... It also confirmed that the Court of Common Pleas could issue a writ of habeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases.... Tony cuenca
The jury modified the verdict to "guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street", whereupon the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. The judge ordered Penn bound and gagged. Penn protested, shouting to the jury, "You are Englishmen, mind your Privilege, give not away your Right", to which juror Edward Bushel replied, "Nor shall we ever do."[3] Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The judge fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison until the fine was paid. Penn protested that this violated Magna Carta and was forcibly removed from the court.[3]
I'll put out a challenge to anyone of these people, help anyone use common law against an act or statue in court, or on the streets and win, drive your car without, tax, mot, insurance etc and see what happens, try and stop them coming to your house and cutting off your gas etc, try and stop them taking your car or your children etc, just try and use common law against acts and statues and see where it goes.
Am I right in thinking that the laws were 'common ' because they were a set of rules/regulations/ directives ( laws if you want ) that were ' common ' ( consistent ) to all the Kings courts in England after the Norman invasion ? ie the rules/laws etc were consistent in every court and not applied differently from one court to another ?
Hi there, do you have a reference that I can cite for the statement that Jury Trial is different from Trial by Jury? I’ve tried to find back up but so far, I’ve not been successful
I have had horrendous harassment. A police officer looked over 2 tenancy agreements saw no signature only on the Guarantor agreement and said no Guarantor he said he was Qualified landlord and said this. We went to court no signatures on any inventory. This is a property with 15 counts of gas safety with a unqualified and unregistered Gas engineer. This court case has taken 3 years and 11 months to defend and cost me 29k and finally I got screwed for 52k The harassment is more than evidenced telling them to cease and desist, removing implied rights of access. Police telling them to stop or they would charge them with harassment and breach of peace. Any advice it would be greatly appreciated 😢
@@EnglishVeteran We joined the ‘EEC’ in ‘73. The European Economic Community is sometimes referred to as the "Common Market", a regional organisation from 1958 to 1993 (wiki). This was changed with the Maastricht Treaty to ‘EU’ signed of course by John Major on behalf of the UK in ‘93.
@@davidp4456 Documents obtained from the public records office by Dave Barnby prove beyond any doubt that Heath committed a conspiracy in that he deliberately lied to us iro of the far reaching contract he was about to sign with the EU. He discusses in those records how The English people would never accept loss of sovereignty and ordered his Civil Servants to push the “story” that we were simply joining a Common Market. He committed Treason and Misprision of Treason. These are facts and have been written about in great depth. I have copies of the minutes of many of Heath’s meetings with his cabinet and civil servants. A matter of public record.A traitor to the core.
Seth Evans Aboriginal West Australia. Your King Acquired our.Royal metals legally so I follow your wonderful video's. One year of law school is redeemed by your humanity. Honesty being corroded be technicality. Back ground linguistics, science history so kindred spirit!
The definition of "after", is that from Black's dictionary? Because there is a definition of "after" meaning " in accordance with" in my Collins dictionary ( after the law)
Being - The Space In Between Everything. Now. You are a 'Being' currently in a 'Human Body'. You are a 'Human Being' in fact. So, what is 'Being' exactly? Well. 'The Underlying State Of Being' is much like a 'Blank Canvas', in the sense that 'Everything Else Then Comes Into Being'. Everything Else 'Then Appears On That Blank Canvas'. Much like how you 'Create A Painting On A Blank Canvas'. I mean. Here in England we even say that 'We Are All A Blank Canvas'. And yes, 'We Are'. So. With 'The State Of Being' Being As It Is 'The Underlying State' In Which Everything Else Then Appears. The 'Blank Canvas'. What Is That 'Blank Canvas'? What does that 'Blank Canvas' actually consist of? It Consists Of 'Space'. The Underlying State Of Being Is 'The Space In Between Everything'. The 'Nothing'-ness' that no one ever notices. As of course, 'We Are all Constantly Focusing On That Which Is 'Being Created'. Rather than 'The Space In Which' Everything 'Is Now Being Created'. So. There you go. 'Being' (You And Me) 'We Are In Truth 'The Space In Between Everything'. That Space That Is 'Absolutely Vital' To Everything Else. As 'Without Which' ,There 'Could Not Possibly 'BE' Anything Else'. I mean, How 'Utterly Beautiful' Is That? Best wishes 🙏 Andrew.
As I understand what was said, in 1972 all power was removed from the UK public. Before that, the jury could change the law to favour a defendant (or the public at large) if they thought the law was wrong. Since then, only people in power can make and change laws, and there's nothing the public can do about it, short of running for and becoming prime minister. Now we have laws made and enforced upon us and zero recourse.
Jury nullification still exists - it is not enshrined in law as such, but a Jury does not have to find someone guity of a crime, even though they technically broke a law.
It looks like he’s done a few “The Strawman, Common Law, The Magna Carta and more..”. I saw some other stuff of his with Strawman in the title so the answer is probably ‘yes he has’.
there are two LAWS operating together ie: Common LAW and Contract LAW, Common LAW (acting in the Private realm ) Contract LAW (acting in the public realm ), never enter any Administrative Court, as that Court operates under Contract Law ie "no victim of harm", (rules Brocken /terms and conditions) apply only, the Court holds "NO" Jurisdiction to prosecute, without a victim, claiming harm/loss. Under the C.F.R all crimes are commercial, 27.11/ or 11.27
@@StudentDad-mc3pu so you say but i have challenge this, and have won, easy as, "NO" Jurisdiction, without a victim, only if you comply to the terms and conditions then it applies, learn the right from wrong, all about LAW 👍
@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629 i know what a contract is fool, you are the thick one who knows nothing about your rights, and yes the meaning is all crimes are commercial, so read again, between the lines, it says what it means, and it is in your face, so plain, you will deny it, as what it claims is true, keep crying, move on, there are more toys over there to keep your mind occupied
A critical mass is needed to demand that Common Law and trial by jury is used in all court cases !!
Since removal of the right to trial by jury can only be seen as a perversion of the course of justice. By the justice system that trumpets it's virtue world wide.
they took over by force through bloodshed and imprisonment. it was a scam from the beginning.
If you ask for anything, you are giving power of yey or ney. No need to ask just start doing.
When the police (on channel 4 murder programme) I remember they state that they quote common law, so they use it when they want too!
@@amandadoubleu9748 But otherwise not. A constable will profess total lack of awareness of any such thing, when it is put to him. So the officer's oath of office is another corrupt fraud on the people. Relying on their ignorance of their rights and entitlements from the police.
"Right is right even when everyone is against it. Wrong is wrong even when everyone is for it." -- William Penn
So even trial by jury isn't perfect.
Wrong.
“Choose to be governed by “ …tell that to our police and judicial system.
Exactly don’t try it.
It doesn’t work just look on here if these sovereign types getting jailed.
There was a guy In Manchester who got jailed for not paying council tax.
The chief of police and PM said we police by consent
As Peter just said " policing with your CONSENT" .
Tell it to yourself .
I do on every notice I issue to them
Very good interview. Once you embark on this path you very soon realise that it is a requirement that you detach from ALL legal agreements. The key to leaving the matrix is to operate under Gods law at all times, In every now moment.
not religious...just common law
What can crock of dog doo doo. 😂
@@omegadeep1you make a compelling argument 🤔
@@JustFollowingOrders12Lol.
So no masturbation? That sucks.
Make Dean your 'go to guy' for all things Common Law Richard. Can't beat 'walking the talk' .
I've just been saying exactly that to myself. If you don't want to be part of the system refuse to take part in it. Don't give your name, anything . Do no harm and go about your business. Simple
Thanks Richard great show ❤🙏🏼
I had 11 police officers including 2 Sargents turn up at my door at midnight looking for my nephew who doesn’t live with me doesn’t have the same surname and doesn’t live in the uk and never has never lived in the UK, I wouldn’t open my front door to them as I new they couldn’t be trusted and they would of entered my property under PACE looking for an alleged offender. My nephew has never ever been in trouble with the police and 3 weeks later they decided he committed no crime??
Motto of the story is be careful what you post on social media and be very careful about what you purchase on line as they are using sting operations . we are not a police state and they need reminding they serve the public.🙏🏼
@anthonyfoster7206 ARE we not a police state? Could have fooled me !!
Yes. The police do act on the modus operandi of the Gestapo. Ya'll have to recognise, understand and accept that plain fact. And proceed accordingly. The experience above stands in substantiation.
Sounds like a made-up story 😂😂😂😂
@@omegadeep1 I wish it was buddy
Many of the comments here are absolute comedy gold. Well played, Richard.
In the heart of Britannia's isle,
Where traditions span a legal mile,
Common law, a dance of precedent,
A legal ballet, ageless and inherent.
From ancient scrolls to modern quills,
A mosaic of justice spills,
No statutes penned with ink of gold,
Yet principles in stories told.
In courts where wigs of wisdom sway,
Precedents pave the righteous way,
For cases old and cases new,
The past informs what judges do.
No rigid code, no written creed,
Yet justice flows with measured speed,
A river winding through the years,
Guided by the legal pioneers.
Fairness whispers in the halls,
Where common law in silence sprawls,
Equality, the guiding star,
No matter who you truly are.
A jury of peers, a solemn vow,
Deciding fate, then taking a bow,
In common law, the people stand,
The power rests in every hand.
So in the realm of common lore,
Where judgments echo evermore,
A living, breathing legal art,
In the beating common law heart.
❤
Beautiful.
Amazing!!❤
❤
This is how we as humans feel it should be. Some peoples programming is just too strong to realise.
Thank you Richard and thank you Dean for driving 5 hours to share your amazing knowledge. Those 5 hours reached 2000 miles (Cyprus). Great broadcast and chemistry between you both. Keep up the great work you both do.
Love Dean. He was the first talk I went to and started my journey back in 2021. Nice to see you again xx
Thank you Dean & Richard, I have learned so much today, I am sorry to admit, I have been to court many times due to my stupidity when I was much younger, the only times I was found not guilty was on the occasions I represented my self, as a matter of fact in a traffic court, the judge asked me whilst in the dock, why I equiped myself with a soliciter, as the soliciter had let me down continuesly, I did a far better job of representing myself. I only wish I knew half what you had informed me of today, even since that occasion I seem to find more and more reasons not to trust soliciters , they are in no way there to assist you, they are there to help the courts get you through there system as quick as possible, help you bah , what ever gave anyone that impression !
Why not stop breaking the law ?The reason you lost was you were obviously guilty , and probably spouted nonsense you read on these sites .
Wow Richard, I'm only half way through and this seems to be one of your best on this subject. Brilliant guest.
An amazing guest,thankyou Dean,
shabbat shalom family x much love much respect xx
Need to watch this several times to get all that information firmly in my head
it is easy, "learn" without a victim claiming injury,,, there has been no crime committed, if you have an invitation to appear in a magistrates court, most of the time it becomes a administrative court, ie: Contract Court only that prosecutes you for braking the rules/terms and conditions on the contract, ie no victim, Crown court is where common law takes place,,, ie there will be a victim of real harm loss or fraud, STAY OUT OF ANY ADDMINISTATIVE COURT, right to the Magistrates court, for them to prove they hold Jurisdiction to prosecute via proving there is a contract, that you have consented to, to allow the court the Jurisdiction, find under freedom of information via giving them 14 days to comply, if you would like a chat about it more i have an email, let me know 👍
@@1peterpope you are a pure gem sir, your information puts it into a nutshell I must have this written down so I do not forget, thank you
CAREFUL ❗️
@@1peterpopeI'd love more on this 👍
@user-xj2im1ep3oso you're telling me a man can impose his wil on another?
11:35 I had a problem with the authorities. I welcomed them to my court, showed them the 5 clearly visible recording devices and contracted with them that the only language to be used was plain English, no jargon, Legalese and the only words and definitions that can be used were those in the copy of this Oxford English dictionary on my desk. Their previous cockyness was gone and they had not one ounce of strength as I believe that they could not use their words/swords against me.
This only happened in your head.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu
You are a liar.
@@william6223 One of us is, and quite deluded too.
@@StudentDad-mc3puyou realise that the people lead the judge yes?
@@william6223studentdad is a Muppet, he trolls Richards comments all the time take a look through how many comments he makes on other peoples views and comments he's a weirdo and lives with his mum in the back bedroom 😂
Never mind common law.
Take a good look at common purpose and the damage it has done to Britain.
You need to capitalise it Common Purpose.
That is one corrupt organisation and every council in England has paid them to use their services ???
Your switched on
That is huge. You will now be called a Conspiracy Theorist even though it isn't a theory - it's a fact.
What do u mean by Britain ?
It's kinda cool when you know the background isn't a green screen... nice and wholesome : )
The background is real, but the actors are AI.😁 No just joking. LOL!
Great info. Everybody should share it with everyone they know.
So long as they don't reject it as scaremongering; and brainwashing. Only trusting in what the MSM tell them to trust in.
Thank you Richard and Dean for this latest information. God bless both and much ❤ .
Absolutely brilliant interview Richard, thank you. Thank you so much to Dean for covering this important topic, really interesting. Important decisions must remain in the hands of the many and not the few.
Kenn D'Oudney Democracy Defined - Good book on democracy
Thanks Dean and Richard..Dean has a good aspect and knowledge of the courts ..he’s also very articulate which help a lot…
There is so much misunderstanding of The Common Law swamping the internet! The Common Law originated in England. England was comprised of a number of Kingdoms years ago. Prior to The Great Charter (Magna Carta), a Common Law was created in England which was the best Law from all the English Kingdoms. The common law. It really is that simple. Examples of The Common Law today are Treason and Murder. There is a Common Law Court in London in The Courts of Justice. However as we know The British State is subverting The English Common Law and The English Constitution!
Sounds like us English have really lost who we are….by design of course!
@@missmouth84 We haven’t. There is a huge rise in understanding of our history, our Constitution and importantly how we were occupied by The British on 1st May 1707. I believe the future is looking good as we head towards Independence.
And that is Treachery to the Constitution... the first and highest form of Treason
What ever happened to Tim in court his case was basically thrown out . If it went to trial by jury it could set president for future similar cases . These cases need to go before a jury to change the system they control the system by not allowing the law to judge the system they have put into place to repress the people .
Great point 😊
Thanks a bunch to Dean and Richard for enlightening us to the ammunition we have at hand to stand against a system designed against us and for providing the platform to bring such information to light respectively. 👍💪💪
The system is to punish law breakers , thereby deterring you , and theteby others . All you need to know .All there is .
I just kept looking at them biscuits on the table 😂😂 im gonna have to come back and watch this later after I've eaten 😅
Brilliant discussion, thank you. Watching from NZ 🙏💖🙏
I can’t thank you both enough. I’ve listen to others, but after this interview, I’m finally beginning to understand.
Such a clear and modestly confident gentleman.
Been watching a few of your videos (incl bb palaver, which this video is obv a round about way of responding indirectly).
This video got me subscribed keep the learning going.
I do like how you are learning just as we all are and are intellectually exploring opposition to the madness.👍
How apt…been to a meet all day to day listening to Delores Clayhill….fab day…
Always been my dream to turn up to court with a library of dictionaries..👍
We can arrange it...
In a magistrates court, it is the Clerk of the Court who takes the modern role of the judge and advises the bench as to law and limitation. So even here the application of law is or can be corrupted.
No it isn't - the clerk is not a judge and makes no decisions regarding the case - they simply advise on the content of law.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu and is a public servant.
@@StudentDad-mc3puthey must also provide an opposing view on the law whether it benefits the case or not
Not obviously but he clearly limits the decisions and questioning by always maintaining the legal, not the lawful, aspects of the preceedings. I've been present at thousands of cases and the degree of control is absolute and is always after the law.@@StudentDad-mc3pu
No one ever openly provides an opposing view on the law. That is the role of solicitors and only then within the rules of evidence and proceedure. And to Andrew Davies, I'm second generation retired copper. How many cases do you think someone sees over a lifetime? I would be interested in the evidence behind your comments?@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629
That bloomin dog had plenty to say..obviously he didn't know how important this interview was ! :-o thank you both !
Thank you for that Richard. Please, please keep this series going! So informative. Great!
Very interesting conversation indeed. It would be fascinating to have a guest on that could explain the Magna Carta from a law perspective compared to a lot of made up things the law today uses for their own convenience, also what one could use from the Magna Carta that would leave the so called laws of today in tears and tantrums , would be nice to have things up the people’s sleeve for once rather than being bamboozled by these laws that are not truly constitutional.
Only three clauses remain - the rest has been repealed over the centuries.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Oh you leaving me wanting more , do I have to buy you dinner first before you divulge the goodies.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Something apparently changed in the US in 1964 with a change to 'Unidroit-Law' following JFK's CIA Asassination where it was previously Babylonian/military/law.Also in 1973 Australian pm Gough William signed/betrayed his country to the 'Unidroit treaty of Rome' giving mineral rights to a foreign entity headquartered in Rome (not Vatican) also, all lawyers swear oaths to Crown City of London which was eventually usurped by the 'House Of Rothschild'. Therefore, having infiltrated the Vatican (usual financial seizure playbook) by using their illuminati-agent-Adam Weishaupt (German Jesuit professor of Canon Law) we can safely say 'All roads lead to Rothschild rather than Rome ? The Jesuit/Khazarin Mafia tag-team are effectively the very definition,quintessence of our planets gangrenous 'Cabal'.
Yak yak yak, and more pseudo legal crap😂😂😂
@@earlgrey691 Nope, none of this is real especially the part about lawyers swearing oaths. Now lawyers, including Barristers swear oaths. The Rothschild link is part of a nasty anti-Semitic racist trope, please stop repeating it.
Respect love and gratitude 🙏. You are enlightened, empowered. Sovereign being. Accountable. Loving it
❤️🌹😃
I cant wait to learn more about being sovereign! I want to live off the land!
Really fascinating! Thanks, Richard!
11:35 I think it was Rob Menard that said in court someone kept saying in court that they did not understand certain words and asked which dictionary and which definition they were using. This really frustrated the prosecution and you can guess that this kept going on and on. 😂
Yes, this is rubbish. Word used in court are the same as words in common usage. No need for a dictionary. This is was simply contempt of court.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu
Most courts deserve contempt.
no its not the same that why there have legalise language blacks law dictionary etc etc @@StudentDad-mc3pu
@@StudentDad-mc3puthat is true but to cover yourself make sure to tell them stick to plain English
@@darrencollings1042black law has no jurisdiction in the UK
Lord Dean of Buxton is a 🌟 star ❤
UK justice system is now as bent as UK politicians.
On the payroll of TPTB.
As bent as the gibberish Richard Vobes is peddling 😂
Court is the janitor/enforcement for corruption
Im just halfway through this video, and i am on this big time... I have a lot i would like to discuss with this guy 🙂 as i think we could really push this and fill some gaps in. As his statutes i can fill the meaning in for him and definitions also a lot of productive discussion
Excellent discussion and one of value. I appreciate the time shared to men and women who desire to learn.
Great clear information - thank you for all your hard work for bringing clarity to we the Soverign living men and women ..."Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you, all things pass away, God never changes. Patience obtains all things. They who have God lack nothing. God alone is enough." St. Teresa of Avila's prayer.
Good show. I wish I was 30yrs younger there’s soooo much to learn.
I can tell you WHAT common sense is instead Richard, missing! ✌💖
thank you everyone
Thanks Dean and Richard , interesting stuff , in a council tax court case I think I lost because the judge only asked me one question , " is that your name?" I said my name and that was the end of the whole thing , guilty. Tricia Lindsay New York attorney did an amazing speech couple of years ago on UA-cam freedom convoy USA , this stuff like "I exercise my right to remain silent" etc is superb but the time and effort and resources to do it are not available to a lot of people busy trying to survive the relentless economic and controlling action they are faced with , therefore how do we get the people able to make changes take action? The 1972 changes were news to me , thanks again , I hope progress is possible on this trajectory
You lost because you didn't pay . Not giving your name means jail .
The word 'sloppy' comes to mind when using the words they expect you to use because you are not taught these things - As they want it to be.
richard thank you for your quick and kind responce to my email,you stand by your every word and a wonderful man ,THANKYOU
(Heads up I copied this from my comment.)
It doesn’t work!
Don’t try this stuff it will get you in trouble.
A guy in Manchester tried to not pay his council tax and got jailed.
An “Act” is a formal body of LAW.
Look at all the channels to debunk and debate and just exposes these sovereign citizens idiots trying this crap.
We need more man made laws to draw the line or fill the in grey areas.
Say no eye witnesses, a person has died and the accused said it was self defence.
Who says it was or wasn’t murder?
How do we stop criminals?
Someone goes into your garden to get a ball back and you hit them.
It’s your property, and some say you can do as you like.
But is it right or moral?
And who gets to decide what you do and don’t do on your property?
Should the person get permission first?
And if they can’t make contact what do they do?
I’ve spoke with many people on this subject and the state lovers make more sense.
We can vote laws in and out or change them.
Also everyone is brainwashed and likes nanny state laws correct?
So they will judge you.
All MSM watchers?
(Well I’ve met some who make good points for strict laws and who say it’s not down to being conditioned to living in a nanny state, but can’t remember the conversation.)
Society need us to work together to work well.
Fact.
Edit, check out “Arty’s Cooperate fiction” he has a reward for anyone who can prove this just works.
So far no winners.
He is open to debates and reacts to a lot of these sovereign types.
The other issue is these sovereigns use old and cherry picked information.
Word definitions change, this is what they get wrong.
I think a lot of the right to drive types get this wrong. (They are sitting in a “Drivers seat” but claim they aren’t a “Driver”…)
Laws change and get updated, or over rides by other laws.
Another enlighten interview ❤
Very good information, thanks Richard, he's a top bloke that Dean
Our laws are our principles and morals.....cause no harm, loss injury as anything else is just Administration
You could have brought out the chocolate hob-nobs Richard after such a long drive!
😅😅😅
As far as I have looked into remaining in the private this maybe achieved through replying to court proceedings directly to the interested parties in their personal capacity rather than by replying to the court in its public standing.
I feel one of the primary issues, as a natural being is the fact a passport is ‘owned’ by the sovereign state not the personage named present in the document. We need a document that is ‘owned’ by the personage, possibly protected by the state as an ‘employee’. I would like to know what you, Richard could interview a ‘friend’ on this issue. Thanks, love your podcast. 🙏🏾
That was a fascinating interview. I’m still none the wiser about who Dean of Buxton is so some further information would be helpful. My interpretation is that Dean is a man who has been on the wrong side of the Dock and has gone on to research in detail what the authority of the court is and how procedures work that make you subject to court authority. I found Dean’s video on UA-cam, Common Law in 60 seconds (5:40) that is genuinely helpful and easy to follow. As ever with layman interpretations of law I’m not sure how consistent Dean’s beliefs are with the real world, but it sounds pretty good. There are certainly some conflicts of his description of ‘Common Law’ with that of ICLR and its place in the English legal system,. Even the Black Belt and has a video on “The Stawman, Common law and more”. We heard an example of how Just Stop Oil had a case against them dropped in a Trial by Jury situation. I think Black Lives Matter similarly had a case over turned for throwing Colston’s statue into the Bristol docks. It would be great to have some more examples of how authority of the court is overturned by not complying with court procedure. Thank you.
Dean was my former partner.
Like many of us, he was inspired to research after receiving Injustice from ‘The System’
He has learned through a combination of research + trialling via standing in his Common Law Rights within the Courts.
In truth this is the only way to learn.
LOVE
Rachel x
@@RachelElnaughLOVECommon law is also natural law it coincides with biblical law! They (TPTB) have changed our court systems to appease their own agenda. Thats why we never get any justice. God bless you Rachel and Dean, going to watch this video later. ❤
Words, Are Like Magical Spells.
What was the second oath that the judges make to the king ? Henry Fonda not John , great film .
My gratitude is infinite!💚
Good talk.
Statute still overrides CL which is the basis of Anglo Saxon law, but not law in itself. Common Law is used by Judges in the High Court as points of law regarding precedents.
@user-xj2im1ep3o
Being pragmatic, I've seen people arguing CL with the Judge, who threatened to have them removed.
@user-xj2im1ep3o I've seen it happen- self representation and 'common law ' representation. I'm not saying they're not well intentioned, but the Judge threatened to charge the person with contempt. Unfortunately, it's wiser to defeat them using their own rules. Common Law can be very vague.
Hi,another interesting video Richard,does dean have a website, UA-cam channel etc where we can learn more?thanks
Nice bloke Dean. Used to see him quite regularly at the Stand In the Park Sunday meet ups in Bakewell.
❤
Some confusion over the various meanings of the word "private". When you set up a limited company as an individual then that company is "privately owned" as in individuals and not the public.
"When you set up a limited company as an individual then that company is "privately owned"" You "register" it - so you register it to companies house, who own it.
@@50somethinglawyer
Is that hearsay?
@@marcj3682
The owners are those whom are registered as the owners.
@@50somethinglawyer You know nothing. You register a car - it belongs to the DVLA - you are the registered keeper, not owner. Anything registered belongs to something. You register your child - the government can then "call up" the child for war - you are the pair rent - renting it.
Go learn something instead of thinking you know it all, and talking out your backside. Useless troll.
@user-xj2im1ep3o " the registered keeper in most cases is also the owner. Parents don't rent their children."
NO.
Look at your Car Registration Certificate. It says you are the "keeper" - NOT OWNER.
They tax you to put it on the road. If you don't pay the tax, they can take the car off the road - you are the keeper,,not owner. If you drive your car with no tax, what happens? The government sales people drive behind you with a blue light, and pull you over. They can take the car off the road, and store it until you pay the tax; that's because you don't own it.
You only keep it. Otherwise, if you were driving a car, and the police pulled you over, and took it off you, in law that would be theft.
The DVLA owns the registered car plate - you are licensed to drive it. You are the keeper. You are contracted to drive it. That's why, if you park somewhere they don't want you to park, they can take it - it's not an act of theft, as you are only licensed to drive it, and keep it.
Parents have to register their child through a birth certificate. The owners of the cerificate don't want to cloth and feed it - so they let you have it. If you mistreat the child, the authorities can legally take it from you. That's why you are "contracted" to look after it well.
There is a difference between law and legal. They are not the same.
The Road Traffic ACT - it's an ACT - not real law. That's why they say you are policyed (policy) by consent. Po Li see force enforce the acts. Police Force - they have twisted a policy officer with a constable to confuse you.
That's why - you park your car on double yellow lines - the policy force can issue a ticket - they are working for corporations - all to do with contracts. Every policy force is registered as a police authority on Dun and Bradstreet. - A BUSINESS.
Open your eyes.
It has never worked to my own advantage, but telling them to eff off has always been so gratifying to me! 🤣
Love Dean, he's a good 'un. Taught us a lot in the scary early days of lockdowns. Blessings to you. From Mel from Derbyshire 🙏
Please, explain Grand Jury, sometime. Thank you.🎯🌸
@@50somethinglawyer IRAN 🇮🇷
@ 7:00 'The injured Party'
You don't register private trusts. You create a proxy trust and claim back your security bond certificate via a securities agreement. That's your gold bar. They hold it, therefore they are the securities holder, the custodian the owner of the estate. You just need proof in the public via a lien.
Ae. "Register" means give to the king
Most illuminating! One question - does ‘after the law’ refer to time or as I initially took it to mean ‘following the law’? The latter sounds more legalese to me.
A summary of Dean’s eight points at the end would have been good.😊
Morning to both :)
I've sent you a few emails talking about commonlaw I use it click on the s view the channel I've done everything this man has done if you what to know more I'd be happy to talk on your show
Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, also spelled Bushell's Case, is a famous English decision on the role of juries. It established beyond question the independence of the jury... It also confirmed that the Court of Common Pleas could issue a writ of habeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases.... Tony cuenca
The jury modified the verdict to "guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street", whereupon the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. The judge ordered Penn bound and gagged. Penn protested, shouting to the jury, "You are Englishmen, mind your Privilege, give not away your Right", to which juror Edward Bushel replied, "Nor shall we ever do."[3] Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The judge fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison until the fine was paid. Penn protested that this violated Magna Carta and was forcibly removed from the court.[3]
Thanks guys, love respect from the Highlands of Scotland
Very interesting, thank you both so much.
I'll put out a challenge to anyone of these people, help anyone use common law against an act or statue in court, or on the streets and win, drive your car without, tax, mot, insurance etc and see what happens, try and stop them coming to your house and cutting off your gas etc, try and stop them taking your car or your children etc, just try and use common law against acts and statues and see where it goes.
Exactly 😅
Thank you for an excellent interview!
What a pile of dog doo doo😂😂😂
@@omegadeep1 Thank you for your reply 🙂. I was worried I had been shadow-banned.
Am I right in thinking that the laws were 'common ' because they were a set of rules/regulations/ directives ( laws if you want ) that were ' common ' ( consistent ) to all the Kings courts in England after the Norman invasion ? ie the rules/laws etc were consistent in every court and not applied differently from one court to another ?
Hi there, do you have a reference that I can cite for the statement that Jury Trial is different from Trial by Jury? I’ve tried to find back up but so far, I’ve not been successful
"By the governed" means we have to sign our rights away informed and willingly.
I'd like the legal paper work then
I have had horrendous harassment.
A police officer looked over 2 tenancy agreements saw no signature only on the Guarantor agreement and said no Guarantor he said he was Qualified landlord and said this. We went to court no signatures on any inventory. This is a property with 15 counts of gas safety with a unqualified and unregistered Gas engineer. This court case has taken 3 years and 11 months to defend and cost me 29k and finally I got screwed for 52k The harassment is more than evidenced telling them to cease and desist, removing implied rights of access. Police telling them to stop or they would charge them with harassment and breach of peace. Any advice it would be greatly appreciated 😢
Richard it is always best to listen to a knowledgeable person and not interrupt with a digress etc.
What would happen if we lived by the Ten Commandments
Should be on the back of all toilet doors in Parle ment to contemplate on .
Your neighbour's wife's ass would be free from coveting .
MMM I could not covet next doors wife
then all would be fine... God created man and gave man the laws. that is THE LAW....
Excellent video, very interesting. I always learn something from these types of video.
Heath told us we were joining The Common Market! He was a liar of course!
Being a liar was one of his better points , he was a well known satanic paedo
We did. He just didn’t ask us.
@@davidp4456 No. we joined The European Union NOT The Common Market.
@@EnglishVeteran We joined the ‘EEC’ in ‘73. The European Economic Community is sometimes referred to as the "Common Market", a regional organisation from 1958 to 1993 (wiki). This was changed with the Maastricht Treaty to ‘EU’ signed of course by John Major on behalf of the UK in ‘93.
@@davidp4456 Documents obtained from the public records office by Dave Barnby prove beyond any doubt that Heath committed a conspiracy in that he deliberately lied to us iro of the far reaching contract he was about to sign with the EU. He discusses in those records how The English people would never accept loss of sovereignty and ordered his Civil Servants to push the “story” that we were simply joining a Common Market.
He committed Treason and Misprision of Treason. These are facts and have been written about in great depth. I have copies of the minutes of many of Heath’s meetings with his cabinet and civil servants. A matter of public record.A traitor to the core.
Save time save souls. Excellent video.
Seth Evans Aboriginal West Australia. Your King Acquired our.Royal metals legally so I follow your wonderful video's. One year of law school is redeemed by your humanity.
Honesty being corroded be technicality. Back ground linguistics, science history so kindred spirit!
Great interview with Dean of Buxton; I know Dean, he’s great fun and very knowledgeable on this subject; he walks the walk. Well done Dean.
The definition of "after", is that from Black's dictionary? Because there is a definition of "after" meaning " in accordance with" in my Collins dictionary ( after the law)
49:25 As soon as Rumpelstiltskin's name was known, didn't he lose his power? Didn't they also have THREE chances to guess his name?
Being - The Space In Between Everything.
Now. You are a 'Being' currently in a 'Human Body'. You are a 'Human Being' in fact.
So, what is 'Being' exactly?
Well. 'The Underlying State Of Being' is much like a 'Blank Canvas', in the sense that 'Everything Else Then Comes Into Being'.
Everything Else 'Then Appears On That Blank Canvas'.
Much like how you 'Create A Painting On A Blank Canvas'.
I mean. Here in England we even say that 'We Are All A Blank Canvas'.
And yes, 'We Are'.
So. With 'The State Of Being' Being As It Is 'The Underlying State' In Which Everything Else Then Appears.
The 'Blank Canvas'.
What Is That 'Blank Canvas'?
What does that 'Blank Canvas' actually consist of?
It Consists Of 'Space'.
The Underlying State Of Being Is 'The Space In Between Everything'.
The 'Nothing'-ness' that no one ever notices. As of course, 'We Are all Constantly Focusing On That Which Is 'Being Created'.
Rather than 'The Space In Which' Everything 'Is Now Being Created'.
So. There you go. 'Being' (You And Me) 'We Are In Truth 'The Space In Between Everything'.
That Space That Is 'Absolutely Vital' To Everything Else.
As 'Without Which' ,There 'Could Not Possibly 'BE' Anything Else'.
I mean, How 'Utterly Beautiful' Is That?
Best wishes 🙏
Andrew.
BLIMEY
@@phillipcarter8045 Blimey indeed!
Since1st January 1973, all acts of statues have been ultra vires and void.
Thank you both 🌻💕🌺
As I understand what was said, in 1972 all power was removed from the UK public. Before that, the jury could change the law to favour a defendant (or the public at large) if they thought the law was wrong.
Since then, only people in power can make and change laws, and there's nothing the public can do about it, short of running for and becoming prime minister.
Now we have laws made and enforced upon us and zero recourse.
Jury nullification still exists - it is not enshrined in law as such, but a Jury does not have to find someone guity of a crime, even though they technically broke a law.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu So how do you go about jury nullification? What's the process?
Should I ask the Black belt barrister?
@@DJ-Dazor you could just hold the judge to his protocol he must follow
The BBB should watch and comment on this. Should be interesting. Legal Eagles don't like Common Law.
He has done some videos on common law.
I bet old BBBarister won’t do a video on this one?
It looks like he’s done a few “The Strawman, Common Law, The Magna Carta and more..”. I saw some other stuff of his with Strawman in the title so the answer is probably ‘yes he has’.
Why do you think he wouldn't?
Thanks richard , Dean certainly knows what common law means according to my perception and again thank you and Dean great podcast cheers Martin😊
@user-xj2im1ep3olegal is not lawful and lawful is not legal.
A citizen comes from a ship , a citizenship, i suspect its derived from maritime law
How do you come to UNDERSTAND this
@legalweasel73 ignorance is bliss , suggest you study the difference between lawful and legal
there are two LAWS operating together ie: Common LAW and Contract LAW, Common LAW (acting in the Private realm ) Contract LAW (acting in the public realm ), never enter any Administrative Court, as that Court operates under Contract Law ie "no victim of harm", (rules Brocken /terms and conditions) apply only, the Court holds "NO" Jurisdiction to prosecute, without a victim, claiming harm/loss. Under the C.F.R all crimes are commercial, 27.11/ or 11.27
Nope. This is not the meaning of any of the words or terms you have described, which you appear to have invented.
@@StudentDad-mc3pulearn what a contract is first
@@StudentDad-mc3pu so you say but i have challenge this, and have won, easy as, "NO" Jurisdiction, without a victim, only if you comply to the terms and conditions then it applies, learn the right from wrong, all about LAW 👍
@@1peterpope You have 'challenged' diddly squat. Nonsense.
@@anti-stupid-not--vax9629 i know what a contract is fool, you are the thick one who knows nothing about your rights, and yes the meaning is all crimes are commercial, so read again, between the lines, it says what it means, and it is in your face, so plain, you will deny it, as what it claims is true, keep crying, move on, there are more toys over there to keep your mind occupied