Freemen of the Land in Action (Again)


British Constitution Group News Release, 9th March 2011

The Arrest and Rescue of “Judge” Peake.

By now videos of the events in Birkenhead County Court on 7th March 2011 will have been seen around the world. If one looks closely, they were in the good old British tradition of protest. The people there had gone beyond the “muttering amongst themselves in pubs and at bus stops” stage of discontent with the Establishment, through “someone ought to do something about it” to “I will do something “.

I strongly suspect that for each person present on the day, there were 10″s of thousands who agreed wholeheartedly with them “and felt themselves accursed they were not there” (to quote Shakespeare) and now are looking forward to the next opportunity to publicly express their discontent. And the Establishment knows this too.

The people who were there, and close inspection of the footage will confirm this, were from all walks of life and parts of the UK and shared our traditional values of insisting on fair play whilst maintaining our standards of politeness and good humour. They ranged from a 90 year old granny from Newcastle who can be seen politely putting the hapless Council officials sitting in the front row of the Courtroom right on a few things to some scary looking “Scottish Sovereigns” in full war paint in the Crowd outside.

Do not mistake the volume of sound that the crowd generated with violence. Queues were formed by police and protestors going in and out of the Court. No policeman”s hats were knocked of (a traditional sign of severe discontent amongst the British). Black umbrellas bearing “Lawful Rebellion” stickers were brandished. No-one was hurt.

No one was hurt, except the man in the green fleece jacket who was arrested in the Court as he tried to get to the Judges exit door from the Court in order to prevent his escape. He was handcuffed and his wrists were chaffed. He took it well, vigorously protested his innocence verbally and encouraged his supporters to start a cry of “welease wodger” ( a reference to Roger Hayes and the stuttering Roman official in the Monty Python film “Life of Brian” ). The British sense of humour intact and another warning sign for the Establishment. People are beginning to laugh at them.

While this was going on, behind them can be seen “Judge” Peake ( not on duty until he has confirmed that he is on oath of course) wearing a “modernised” Judicial Robe that looked suspiciously like a long dress and a hint of eye shadow. A sign of a decadent establishment perhaps?

Moments before he had uttered the famous last words ” I did not thing so many people would be interested in your bankruptcy Mr Hayes”. Now a large gentleman in a black jacket was confirming that he was under arrest for treason and contempt of Court and reassuring him that he would not be hurt. The Judge, to give him credit and entering into the spirit of things , apparently said ” I suppose that the case is adjourned. I hand it over to you”. The noise level in the room increased further, and the Judge was bundled out of the room by Court officials. No matter. We know his name and where he works, we can get back to him later. “Escape” is a common law offence but it is the least of his problems.

To clarify the reasons why “Judge” Peake was arrested for those offences. In recent years the Establishment has allowed what that they call the “Administrative Courts” where the common law rules of natural justice do not apply. There are no juries and Judges alone decide guilt or innocence. Some, such as the Children”s and Protection Courts are held in secret. Hearsay evidence from highly paid “expert witnesses” is allowed. Parents may not speak for their children and children may not speak at all. Officials, such as social workers are allowed to give evidence without being put on oath. Halsbury”s Laws of England (the authoritative reference work has this to say about the situation:

“”Notwithstanding that the courts have for centuries exercised a limited supervisory jurisdiction by means of the prerogative writs, the wider remedy of judicial review and the evolution of what is, in effect, a specialist administrative or public law court is a post-war development. This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration”

In other words, the Courts and the Administration have teamed up behind our backs and invented new rules for themselves but not for us. The law is no longer common to us all. That is the reason why this man refused to acknowledge his common law oath to a Sovereign who swore at Her Coronation to rule according to our laws and customs. He was part of a scheme that was anything but lawful and customary and had caused the death of The Sovereign in the legal sense. That is the definition of Treason.

It was also a contempt of Court, the real common law court. This is the Judgment of the House of Lords that Roger Hayes read to Mr Peake as a test:

” Lord Diplock outlined the various ways in which justice might be prejudiced:

“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is a contempt of court” (at p. 309).

A-G v. Times Newspapers 1974.

Mr. Peake was part of a scheme to set up fraudulent “Courts” in contempt of the real, common law, Courts. He refused to acknowledge the common law principles that his Oath had been made to and was arrested for treason and contempt of Court.

Then attention turned to the hero of the hour, the man in handcuffs, whose name apparently is Rusty. The young PC (doing his best in trying circumstances but blissfully unaware of what was really going on) who was holding Rusty was prevailed upon by members of the crowd to loosen them. His Sergeant arrived and the WPC who had got in the way of Rusty and the PC trying to handcuff him, explained to the Sergeant what had happened and that she had been assaulted. The Sergeant (clearly an experience man in his prime) who had been spoken to by Rogers”s representative beforehand and knew more of what was going on, entered into the spirit of things. The man in the black coat, whom the “Judge” had handed over the Court to and now was sitting in his chair, was asked to make a decision. “Case Dismissed. Release the prisoner”. It was clear that the knew the drill in Courts from personal experience. The young PC though about it but the sergeant said no. He had a WPC who was claiming that she had been assaulted. The internal grievance procedures, the time off with stress, the application for duties out of contact with the public, the employment tribunals flashed before his eyes. Rusty was coming in (going to the police station).

Then Ray Sinclair (well known in Freeman circles) called the meeting to order and stood on a table. Entering into the spirit of thing (again) the police and public were hushed. Ray had a bit of trouble with the WPC. She did not want to give her name. He referred to her by number. Ray said his piece about “Educating the Constables”. Judging by the expressions on their faces, it was clearly working with some of them. More police arrived. Not having had the benefit of Ray”s advice, they led members of the public out one by one. Rusty was taken to the police station along with some hard core Freemen who insisted on holding onto him. At the time of writing one of them is in Walton Jail for “Contempt of Court” for refusing to give his name. He is another hero.

What the establishment should fear is the fact that three vital common law institutions were resurrected on that day. They are the Grand Jury (in its investigative capacity) the Posse and the Militia.

The Sheriff of Merseyside had been summoned to come to the meeting in Hamilton Square and had failed to appear. A Deputy Sheriff was been elected from amongst those present. He selected a Grand Jury of local people gave them the task of investigating an unlawful Court. When they arrived at the Court building the cry went up “make way for the Jury” and overworked security staffs (who were busily engaged in taking phones and cameras from people who were queuing for the public gallery) cleared a path for them. That is why there were so many video recordings. The security staff, (blissfully unaware of the fact that Juries in all County Court cases were “suspended” during World War II and never reinstated) but understanding British fair play did the right thing.

Meanwhile the Sherriff, acting under the Common Law and the Sheriffs Act 1887, did his duty and called up a posse:

“S.8 (2)If a sheriff finds any resistance in the execution of a writ he shall take with him the power of the county, and shall go in proper person to do execution, and may arrest the resisters and commit them to prison, and every such resister shall be guilty of a misdemeanor….”.

Based on Rogers”s previous experience with Mr. Peake, the Queens Writ was being resisted. Rusty was one of the Posse. They were also briefed on the private persons obligation to arrest offenders and to help other persons who called upon him the help them.

A Captain of the Militia was also elected at the meeting but his services were not required.

The Judge was, in law, “rescued” by the police. Here is the definition of that offence from Archbold:

“Rescue at common law is forcibly liberating a prisoner from lawful custody: 1 Co.Inst. 160; 1 Hale 606, 611; 2 Hawk. c. 21; 1 Russ.Cr., 12th ed., p. 335. If the prisoner is in private custody, the rescuer is not liable criminally unless he knew that the prisoner was in custody on a criminal charge: ibid. The offence is generally treason or misdemeanour according to the quality of the person rescued; but if the latter is not convicted of the offence for which he was in custody, the rescue is only a misdemeanour: ibid…”.

The Chief Constable, who is vicariously liable for the actions of his subordinates, will have to answer a charge of treason. That should get his attention. The problem is that the police have not been properly trained. Treason and the Constitution were quietly removed from the legal and school syllabuses by the establishment 30 years ago. Chapter 45 of Magna Carta addresses this:

“45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well….”.

As Ray Sinclair said “I”m trying to educate the constables”. That is what was happening and it was clearly working.

The rest is history. To quote Kipling (and acknowledging that not all who were there were Saxons):

“My son,” said the Norman Baron, “I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–

“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.

“You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

“But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don’t trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they’re saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear ‘em out if it takes you all day.

They’ll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It’s the sport not the rabbits they’re after (we’ve plenty of game in the park).
Don’t hang them or cut off their fingers. That’s wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.

“Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say ‘we,’ ‘us’ and ‘ours’ when you’re talking, instead of ‘you fellows’ and ‘I.’
Don’t ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell ‘em a lie!”

About these ads

24 responses to “Freemen of the Land in Action (Again)

  1. Time for ordinary folks to stand by what is both decent and right.

  2. I’ve stated here, I think the general FotL argument is bollocks. But I must admit I’m beginning to wonder whether that matters so much. If this thing grows to great proportions, it will be very big trouble for the State. We know that the court system, police and State are now extremely corrupt and has abandoned genuine Common Law principles- secret courts of all kinds, judicial activism, judges deciding guilt and innocence. Maybe after all, the general rejection of that is more significant than the precise legal arguments used.

    I’m beginning to watch this one with great interest, personally.

  3. I’ve corresponded, by phone and email, with some of these people and done some research myself. They have done a tremendous amount of research into this and they have contacts with some of the top legal minds in the country.

    People who dismiss this without doing their own extensive research are simply demonstrating the ignorance that has allowed criminal elements to subvert the law, IMHO.

  4. ” Maybe after all, the general rejection of that is more significant than the precise legal arguments used.”

    I think I did tell you that a few months ago. These people are worth watching.

  5. You did indeed Sean :)

  6. C H Ingoldby

    ”” Maybe after all, the general rejection of that is more significant than the precise legal arguments used.”

    I think I did tell you that a few months ago. These people are worth watching.”

    When people base their actions on a legal argument rather than a general matter of principle, then the precise legal arguments used are very significant.

    These people are going to achieve precisely nothing because they are reducing their beliefs to a completely incorrect and incoherent understanding of law. As such, they aren’t going to make any friends, gain any converts or get any good propaganda. This is horribly counterproductive.

    The only way to make any real progress is when the arguments are made on points of principles of liberty, not half baked legalisms.

  7. C H Ingoldby. An ad hominem attack. Shame on you.

  8. Ingoldby is a troll.

  9. C H Ingoldby

    So Johnny, your definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with you.

    Well done.

  10. @Ingoldby, no my definition of a troll is someone who relies on ad hominem et al and mis-information. I posted a link to Magna Carta and, as I said, I know for a fact heavyweight research and legal minds are involved in this.

  11. C H Ingoldby

    Johnny, you didn’t post a link to the Magna Carta (and so what if you had?)

    And as for your ‘heavyweight research’, how about actually quoting some of it instead of expecting everyone to simply accept your word for it?

    From your posts, you are the one making odd claims with no substantiation whatsoever.

  12. @Ingoldby – I posted a link to Magna Carta on the other thread about this, here it is again:
    G.R.C. Davis Magna Carta Revised Edition, English translation

    “So what if I had” – you kept asserting Magna Carta was being misquoted.

    The research is not substantially on the internet and there are actual on-going court cases as I type. I have spoken to people involved in these. The substantiation will come via the actions of these people.

    Now kindly explain to me why you’re trolling a libertarian website.

  13. C H Ingoldby

    The people who you think have done ‘heavyweight research’ misquote the Magna Carta. Your link to it simply confirms that fact. These people are idiots and as such they are going to fail.

    So, you make completely unsubstantiated arguments in support of demonstrably false arguments. And you think i’m the one trolling! Classic.

  14. @Ingoldby – I leave it for people to read through the threads checking out your comments, Magna Carta, and the results of what happens in the on-going court cases. This will demonstrate to anyone with a higher than a room temperature IQ that you’re a bullshitting troll.

  15. C H Ingoldby

    I note that yet again you refuse to substantiate any of your claims.

    You simply expect everyone to accept that what you claim is backed up by secret ‘heavyweight research’ which you can’t share with us. ‘Heavyweight research notwithstanding, you still can’t even quote the right clause of the Magna Carta you claim to revere…..

    And you call me a troll!!

  16. @Ingoldby, you are a troll, you’ve proved it with your postings – clearly you’re too dumb to see that. You’re also continually asserting that, somehow, I’m not quoting “the right clause of the Magna Carta.” This is just simply utter bullshit and nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

    If you’re so sure of yourself, why do you go along to the British Constitution Group meetings and set them straight, using your immense knowledge of Constitutional Law? I’ve talked to some of them and it’s clear to my they know what they’re talking about whilst you’re simply talking through your arse.

  17. C H Ingoldby

    Well done. You yet again refuse to even attempt to substantiate any of your claims.

    Now you are relying on an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to reason. Proof that you have lost the argument.

  18. @Ingoldby – seriously, are you for real? If you’re interested go along to the British Constitution Group meetings and tell them why they’re wrong. As I already said, most of the stuff isn’t on the internet. It’s not trivial bullshit I can expound on in a blog comment. Court cases are on-going. You’re a bullshitting troll, QED.

  19. C H Ingoldby

    Oh dear Johnny.

    You still refuse to substantiate any of your claims, instead you expect everyone to just accept them, without any backing whatsoever.

    If your ideas had any real legal basis then you would very easily be able to cite it. You don’t, which clearly demonstrates that you are the bullshitter here.

  20. @Ingoldby so, because you’re too lazy to read up on the British Constitution Group stuff or contact them, I’m somehow obliged to service your idiocy? You’re a troll.

  21. C H Ingoldby

    Johnny, you are the one making the claims without any substantiation and then you demand that anyone who doesn’t accept them has to go off and find the evidence to back them up for you.

    That’s not the way it works. You make the claims, you have to back them up.

    I note that you have still failed to provide any susbstantiation for you claims whatsoever. Why are you so lazy that you can’t do so? Is it because your claims actually have no really legal basis whatsoever?

  22. C H Ingoldby, can I suggest that you watch the following series of clips by John Bingley on Constitutional law youtube. Part one is here.

    If you still disagree that the evidence does not back up the claims of the British Constitution Group, I would be delighted if you could explain in your own words just where they are wrong in law.

  23. Ingoldby is clearly trolling but one hopes other blog readers will be able to understand there are real issues to be addressed here.

  24. It would seem that C.H.Ingoldby seeks “coherent understanding of the Law “, in this particular instance, as he is unable to accept the research and findings of a great many knowledgable people.In that case further substantiation of these findings can easily be ascertained from such legal luminaries as Lord Chief Justice William Blackstone, in his “Commentaries”,
    Lord Chief Justice Coke, and latterly the findings of Lord Chief Justice Hewart of Bury, in his book “The New Despotism “.
    All of their sage legal findings coincide with those of these researchers who give their support to the B.C.G.
    You should find these legal Tomes of great illumination, and enjoyable reading on a wet afternoon.