The Common Law Right to Travel in detail

The Common Law Right to Travel in detail

Many people asked me NOT to write this, however I’ve come to the opinion that it’s time this issue was examined in detail and the case law you’ll need, should you get into trouble exercising your ‘Right To Travel’, more fully explained.

Some of this information is readily available elsewhere, but the court cases the information was lifted from is not there, as often this kind of information is pushed around the internet without any real examination of the facts. To that end I’ve taken it upon myself to elaborate further and show you where you can find a wealth (literally!) of legal information for FREE.

Many people will have seen various videos on YouTube and elsewhere, regarding this issue. But precious few will have explained to you where you can get the ‘legal’ information you might need, especially if you want to avoid some time courtesy of Her Majesty’s Bed and Breakfast establishment’s scattered around the country!

I was influenced a very long time ago, by stories then circulating amongst friends of mine in the USA, about Charlie Sprinkle. More on Charlie can be found on my blog HERE Charlie has, sadly, passed away since I wrote that piece and I now feel I owe him a debt of gratitude for reminding me that, it’s often humble people from ordinary backgrounds that can affect the greatest change. So this article is inspired by Charlie Sprinkle.

Now, although this is dedicated to that great Californian champion, this article is aimed squarely at those people residing in the UK. Although, you can cite case law in a defence (and academic opinion) from almost anywhere.

The sources used for this piece include:- (British and Irish Legal Information Institute, a reference for many solicitors and law professionals in the UK), look up case law from almost anywhere in the world. Open to use by members of the public FREE. (the Governments’ own web site covering legal the full content of ‘statutes’ and ‘Acts’), covers legislation for Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. Also FREE to use and extremely useful. I use it almost daily.

Halsburys Laws of England is another essential component in our quest for TRUTH, curently edited by Baron Mackay of Clashfern a Scot.

I urge you always to do your own research and the best place to start is by searching the database of Halsbury’s Laws of England here

The House of Lords, the UK parliament web site and many other sources (including YouTube) are useful too and these formed part of my overall research.

I will give you the exact case law, which you can then verify for yourselves that what I’ve put here is truthful.

Charlie Sprinkle’s entire court action is also available on-line, should my American friends wish to step-by-step follow his example, which is truly remarkable. See my earlier piece on Charlie and watch some videos of Charlie describing the process he used  HERE

Firstly, the case law you need to to study (in date order), are these:-

R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210. In delivering the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said:-

“If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.”

Justice Swift is telling us that, driving without government documents such as licences, MOT’s etc., cannot be ‘of itself criminal’, as the government licences these acts and therefore they cannot be criminal.

This is still a leading case, as can be seen from this document which can be found on The House of Lords’ website:

Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage:-

“The only ‘dedication’ in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a ‘right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.’ ”


This makes the point that you can travel freely and that you can pass without ‘let’ (to hinder or stand in the way of)  or ‘hindrance’ (obstruction). The phrase ‘without let or hindrance’, meaning, without impediment, something that is free to progress.

Read the whole piece in the context of the case at the House of Lords:

It’s often interesting to look up some of the other case law cited in a judgement too.

DPP v. Jones and Another [1999] Lord Irvine LC

“The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and well accepted.”

Lord Irvine makes the point that, one day you were a farmer with a shotgun, the next you’re a criminal because you don’t have a license for it. (a license has been required since 1962). See

See this UK Parliament (House of Lords) document here for a full transcript of the case:

Interestingly, this article coincided with the News that, Khat is to become illegal in this country too (at the time of writing), so those people who have it in their possession from next week will become criminals!

These cases help our understanding of and help to define the ‘common law right to travel’ argument in the legal realm.

So there you have it, I hope that helps many people, including the Police and other law professionals themselves, as I’m sure many of then would rather be chasing/prosecuting real criminals.

Another common concern amongst many of you seems to be whether Solicitors act for you or the Courts… well this should help focus that argument and dispel another myth or two.

In the famous case of Batchelor -v- Pattison & Mackersy (1876) 3R914 which establishes that solicitors are officers of the court and owe the court various duties which can transcend duties owed to a client but generally when a counsel is employed the solicitor is bound to follow his instructions. In England the Rondel -v- Worley 1969 AC191 case established that solicitors “should not blindly follow counsel”.

This obviously has implications for questions of negligence when they arise in the context of the conduct of hearings. In the above case the client decided to sue his former solicitor in relation to his conduct of the trial claiming that his solicitor had been negligent. He advanced a human rights argument that he had been denied a fair trial because of negligence and claimed a miscarriage of justice had resulted. He did not aver that he would have been acquitted but for this negligence.

So there you have it, two myths dispelled for the price of one!

Many books on aspects of Law cost well over a £1,000 including Greens Litigation Styles and indeed ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ which costs a not inconsiderable sum of £10,100 for the latest 5th edition (at time of writing), yes, you read that correctly! See HERE. Yet we’re told that ignorance of the law is NO DEFENCE! How can we possibly understand the law when it’s prohibitively expensive to buy such books and they’re not available in my (or your), local library for the same reason? Of course this is a deliberate attempt to keep you in that state of ‘ignorance’, so that administrative courts can unlawfully steal your debt money.

By the way Lord Halsbury was a very interesting man and I’ll finish by quoting a piece from that excellent (though expensive!) work that bears his name:-

 “It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England. This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.”


So, even if you do get dragged to court over ‘alleged’  council tax, parking fines etc., you now know that administrative courts are unconstitutional and have no constitutional authority derived from parliament. They’re businesses, pure and simple. Don’t play their game.

I will be writing more on the contents of ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ soon, especially an in depth look at why there is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation (touched on in the above quote). Which means they can’t pursue you for Council Tax etc. I’ve stated many times, all taxes are voluntary! More on that coming soon, so look back.

In closing this article, you might want an understanding of the rules of OSCOLA (a guide to understanding and presenting/citing case law etc), by downloading the pdf quick guide HERE or a more in depth guide HERE

My end quote for this article is by LORD HALSBURY, HARDINGE STANLEY GIFFARD British statesman (1823 – 1921)

“My Lords, I have more than once had occasion to say that in construing a statute I believe the worst person to construe it is the person who is responsible for its draft.”
– 1902 Appeal Cases (p. 477)


This site is maintained by James-Neely: Gillan™ and his Sponsors.

You should be aware that the information on this website cannot be a substitute for legal advice – knowledge and understanding of the relevant law is important so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard the adult in any particular case.

By using this website you agree to be legally bound by the terms and conditions set out below. If you do not want to be bound by these terms please discontinue the use of this site.

This site is produced by James-Neely:Gillan™ and whilst seeking to ensure that the information published on the site is up-to-date and accurate, the information on the site does not constitute legal or professional advice and James-Neely:Gillan™ and his Sponsors cannot accept any liability for actions arising from its use.

Copyright © 2011 – 2014 Free The People™
This web site is generously supported by The Digital Network with low cost PREMIUM web hosting and many other facilities that would cost us far too much elsewhere.



This ill-conceived tax aimed at the very poorest in our society, is now showing us just exactly how much the government wants to know about YOU!

Start with this piece from the Scotsman Newspaper HERE, where for example ,Edinburgh city’s vice-convener of housing, Cammy Day, said the unique crackdown is necessary to prevent the council’s oversubscribed DHP allocation from running out, he added he was “not comfortable” with the tough policy.

Cllr Day, whose Forth ward is one of the poorest in the city, said: “As a result of a policy imposed by the Conservative Party we are having to do this, otherwise our entire DHP allocation would have been spent in the first three months of the financial year.

“It is a horrible position to be in, having to make a judgement on people’s lifestyle choices.”

However, city Tory group leader Cameron Rose backed the stance. He said: “I think people would expect that those seeking taxpayer money are asked to rein in their spending on luxuries. People make decisions on how they can afford to spend their money within households every day and I don’t think it’s a bad discipline to encourage.”

I personally think its rich coming from a Tory Councillor telling us to “rein in spending” when the Tories have spent more since 2010 than every government added together since 1900! Remember, this money is printed by the Bank of England (a central bank that is privately owned), so it’s a debt paid for by your taxes. Read more HERE See also some interesting facts on the CIA’s web site (yes, that CIA) World Rankings on cash and Gold Reserves HERE and HERE. Although remember, we don’t own an ounce of the gold or hold any cash reserves ourselves as, the gold etc., belongs to private Bankers, although we’re paying for it many times over through the Bedroom Tax, COUNCIL TAX, VAT, DUTY, CAR TAX, PAYE, NIC, DEATH DUTIES and every other form of taxation you can name. If we were taxed at 100% of our wages this would barely meet the interest! The USA is last on the list and we are very near the bottom too. Look at the countries with positive balances, many of them are a fraction of the size of Scotland never mind the UK. Making a great case for separation from the union and Scottish Independence. Let’s get back to printing our own LAWFUL MONEY.

If you don’t want the Bedroom Tax (or indeed any other tax), then read and learn about money. See previous articles on this subject HERE and HERE to learn more. Watch Godfrey Bloom MEP, tell the European Parliament about the Banking Scam, that many commentators such as myself have been banging on about for years.

If you’ve arrived here looking for more help with Bedroom Tax issues, use the links below to see what help may be available to you.

Shelter (England)

Shelter (Scotland)

A legal challenge to the Bedroom Tax is being plotted by Capability Scotland. Read more HERE

However, the most important point to remember in all this, is that for the first time in history, the people are being fleeced by the government to bail out Banks and re-capitalise them, all off the backs of all of us and especially the poor, who’re paying the greatest amount as a percentage of income.

Wise up, where is the revolution? Apathy is our greatest threat, not the government. You can only ever get the government you deserve, and if this government is what you want then do nothing. But in the words of perhaps the greatest politician who ever lived, Abraham Lincoln (former President of the United States), and a man who truly had a grasp on what was happening then, and incredibly is still happening today “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it”.

We in the UK need to shake off the shackles of our economic slavery and overthrow those who seek to deceive and enslave us. With the rise of Pay Day Loans at exorbitant interest (I’ve seen interest rates of 3,000% and much more!), then the point of total collapse of these ‘slave’ scams must inevitably be near.

You may be interested to know that, if you charged anyone (in business transactions say), anything over a very low rate of interest in a Scottish Court action (around 8%), then you could be facing charges of Usury, yet these Pay Day Loan Sharks get away with it. Where is the law then? We’re all meant to be equal under the law, but this is verging on the truly farcical. Do you really want to borrow ONE POUND and pay back THREE THOUSAND?

As the 50th Anniversary nears of a famous speech entitled ‘I Have A Dream‘ by yet another great man, a man killed for having the courage of his own convictions, and because I too ‘have a dream’, a dream of peace and a life without any kind of slavery (especially economic slavery), so I will finish today’s blog in my customary manner with some of Martin Luther King’s most profound words

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.


Note on Usury in Scot’s Law

The origins of the rules of Scots law relating to interest lie in the Canon law prohibition of usury. Prior to the Reformation the taking of interest for the use of money was at best unenforceable and at worst a criminal offence. By the 14th century, however, methods had been found of obtaining interest on money lent. The most common was a bond of annual rent, whereby a right to the whole or part of the income from a debtor’s lands was granted to a creditor as a means of repaying a loan or of paying interest upon it. After the Reformation, attitudes to the charging of interest relaxed and instead attention became focused upon the demanding of exorbitant rates of interest. The Usury Act 1587 stated that any person taking interest at more than 10% would be punished as a usurer “according to the existing laws”. Further Acts of 1594 and 1597 clarified this to mean that the penalties for demanding interest at a rate in excess of 10% would be (i) unenforceability of the claim for interest, (ii) discharge of any loan or security, and (iii) confiscation of the lender’s moveable goods and gear. By the time Stair wrote in 1681, contracts were described as “usurary” only where the interest charged was unlawful or exorbitant.

Scottish Government publishes repossession guidance for Registered Social Landlords – June 2012

The Scottish Government has published new guidelines for RSL’s (Registered Social Landlords) seeking repossession of Social Housing property. A copy of the new guidance may be read below.

Landlords will be required to meet all pre-action requirements for all notices of proceedings involving rent arrears which are served on the Tenant or any qualifying occupier on or after 1 August 2012. Consequently, the courts will not hear any re-possession case where the Landlord has not adhered to the pre-action requirements.

The new guidelines provide:

A Landlord must do all that they can to give the Tenant advice and support prior to entering into a tenancy agreement, and also throughout the duration of the tenancy;
It is a minimum requirement that the Landlord should make sure that their internal procedure is consistent with all pre-action requirements;
The Landlord and Tenant must do all that they can to resolve rent arrears before the Landlord takes action to evict the Tenant;
The first consideration of the Landlord and Tenant must be identifying and where possible resolving the rent arrears issue;
The point of repossession should be where the arrears have an impact on the Landlord’s finances:
Evictions must always be the last resort.
The requirements for serving a notice of eviction are:

The notice should be served on any qualifying occupiers and must contain:

The grounds for recovery of the property;
The reason why repossession is being sought;
The date which eviction proceedings are to be raised;
The steps taken by the Landlord in compliance with the pre-action requirements;
All information on rent and other payment arrears given by the Landlord to the Tenant:
Any help and advice offered by the Landlord to the Tenant;
Any efforts to agree a reasonable re-payment plan, and the Tenant keeping to the agreed plan; and
Has the Tenant been advised by the Landlord to contact Local Authority.
Landlord will be required to confirm to the court that they have met all the pre-action requirements.

The Landlord cannot serve the notice where:

the Tenant has applied for housing benefit but the application has not yet been determined;
the Tenant has taken other steps which are likely to result in payment within a reasonable time scale: or
the Tenant is complying with an agreed arrears payment plan.
The court will also consider the nature, frequency and duration of the Tenant’s conduct, the extent to which the conduct was an act or omission of any person other than the Tenant and any action taken by the Landlord

Read the original document HERE 

If you’re facing eviction please get help soon, I’ve provided links at the foot of the page to various bodies in Scotland that should be able to offer you advice.

Before you do anything though, this article HERE is a MUST READ for Council Tenants everywhere in the UK. See where a reasoned approach taken by Stirling Council in Scotland, has applied common sense (if not so much common law), to this insidious practise (eviction) and at last provides a glimmer of hope to those unfortunate people caught in that situation, a situation often not of their own making.

If you’re a home owner, please see my previous articles on the illegality of many repossessions, especially if you live in Southern Ireland or the USA and Canada.

If you stay in Eire (Southern Ireland), check out Ben Gilroy or indeed read your own constitution to see where you’re all being hoodwinked. Read the Irish Constitution HERE

Interestingly there is no Twenty–second Amendment of the Constitution. The Twenty–second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 [relating to the removal of a judge from office and providing for a body to be established by law to investigate or cause to be investigated conduct constituting misbehaviour by a judge or affected by incapacity of a judge] was not passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. No surprise there, once more an example of collusion and another attempt to deceive the people. Sadly (in my opinion), the Twelfth Amendment was not ratified by the People (the right to life of the unborn), a future article?

If you’re American or Canadian, see videos below for more on how this impacts you and what you can do about it. Fight back!.


I hope to be able to offer you help with this issue (through an introduction to a qualified Solicitor), on pursuing a claim in Scotland. More on this exciting development coming soon!

Links to Scottish resources: Shelter    The Scottish Government     Jonathan Mitchell Q.C. (eviction and rent arrears – a guide to the law in Scotland)

Update on Roger Hayes

Roger Hayes has now been released from prison and if there’s anybody out there with even the slightest interest in how our systems of Law are being manipulated and abused, then watch the video below now and complain to your MP about this issue.

Remember, this could be you or your Mother next!


ARREST OF ROGER HAYES – Latest Update – More as we get it

We have just learned that Wirral Council, having issued proceedings against Roger Hayes for non payment of Council Tax, recently decided to enact their right for a Committal Hearing against Roger for his continued non-payment.

On Tuesday 26 June 2012 a Committal Hearing took place at which Wirral Council state that Roger failed to appear.

As a result the Judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest, and Roger was arrested yesterday morning. The Council spokesman either did not know or refused to name the Judge.

Following his arrest Roger was brought before a Magistrate and sentenced to
21 days. The Council spokesman either did not know or refused to name the Magistrate, and was unable to say how much, if any, notice of either hearing was given to the General Public.

At this point we would like to make a correction to our initial press release, and that is:

Roger Hayes “WITHELD” his Council Tax rather than “refused to pay” as we reported. This has important implications in his legal case.

The most important fact in Roger’s arrest, trial and imprisonment is that nobody knows the detail of what happened to him. What were the names and numbers of the police officers? What was the Court? What was the number of the case? Who was the Magistrate or Judge? Were any public present to see justice being done?

Roger was arrested at home and 9 hours later he was in prison, on the decision of one Magistrate. This must be yet another very dangerous example of the rise of the ‘secret’ courts and ‘secret justice’ – Kenneth Clarke MP is still pushing for yet more Courts without Juries.

Calls to the police and Liverpool prison where he is being held, have all been met with a wall of silence under the ‘we can’t say’ and ‘data protection’. We can see from this how yet more secrecy is introduced to keep the public interest at bay.

It is understood that the police have received many calls – one member of the public had the phone slammed down on him when he mentioned Roger’s name.

Roger’s family have also been refused direct information and access to him.
They have now started the paperwork trail for formal permission to visit.

A former police officer has kindly made a number of pertinent points which we are happy to publish.

He was informed us that the prison would not confirm that Roger was with them for “security reasons”. They referred him to the “Prisoner Location Service”
on 0121 626 2773 – they would not accept verbal requests. Merseyside Police switchboard are also referring calls about Roger to the Council. This appears a highly dubious practice at law.

He states – “Because I wanted to make complaints I was put through to the police control room. The drill is for complaints to be recorded and then passed to an Inspector who will contact the complainant within 24 hours. My initial complaints are:

1. Was anyone informed of Rogers arrest? The contingency plan was for him to get a message to me. Note that the prisoner does not get to make a phone call himself. This is a precaution against prisoners passing coded messages to their associates outside.

2. Merseyside police, according to various sources on the Internet, are claiming that “Data Protection” forbids them to confirm Rogers whereabouts.
This appears highly dubious practice because a “Regulation” cannot be held to repeal or infringe a Common Law right.

3. Passing complaints about police actions to the Council is a breach of the Police Discipline Regulations and of confidentiality for the individuals who are being complained about. I believe the Police Federation will not like this abuse of process.”

The UK Column is delighted to report that the story of Roger Hayes has gone UK and world wide. Many are asking us what can they do? Our first answer is to spread the word, highlighting the the seriousness of the secrecy and lack of transparency in the whole process. As an example another member of the public has asked these excellent questions:

“Was there a signed warrant (wet signature) and who authorised it if so:

– Was there any forced entry to the house and/or damage.

– Did the warrant remain at the house.

– Did they search the house. Did they take anything away, i.e. computer, files, phones, router etc.

– Did they leave an inventory at the house Were there any witnesses to the arrest.

– Was any force used on Roger, or anyone else in the house.

– Was he handcuffed. Was there any explanation to anyone else in the house.
Is there any idea of the charge. Were the arresting officers ‘sworn police officers,

– PCSO’s, from another ‘agency’ with powers of arrest or privates, or a mixture.

– Did anyone get their names or collar numbers.

– Did anyone get the name of the Prison Officer who called. If anyone could collate that, am sure his lawyers (or others) will want it, plus, it would provide good info for a follow up article”

Please ring the authorities yourself to hear their answers first hand. Every call is a point of support for Roger and shows the authorities the overwhelming public interest in the case. Please also write and ask for information and answers from Wirral Council and other authorities. As always be polite and measured in your calls and requests for information – unfortunately the authorities may not treat you with the same respect. As soon as we have more information we will post it. For those that want to write to Roger we will post his Prison Number as soon as we have it.

Merseyside Police Tel: 101 local or +44 (0)151 709 6010 in UK.

Liverpool Prison Tel: +44 (0)151 530 4000

Crimestoppers (UK only) Tel: 0800 555 111

If you would like to write to Roger with your support, you can write to him

HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road Liverpool L9 3DF

His prisoner number is: A8953CP

There’s a special UK Column Live broadcast tomorrow, Wednesday, 4th July at 12PM BST:

Audio stream on TNS Radio Video stream on UK Column

“I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I still can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do.” – Helen Keller



Common Law incidents and Police failure to understand and recognise the existence of Constitutional Law

I have had cause to witness first hand recently, three serious instances of Rights abuses, by four Police Officers, four Local Authority representatives and one DEFRA representative. These abuses ranged from all the Police Officers having little or scant knowledge of the Laws and Rights I was informing them of, and all the others (including two police officers), knowing nothing about the infringements of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Articles contained therein.

The first case was a traffic stop in Glasgow where the officers present told me there’s no such ‘law’ as Constitutional Law!!! For their (and your) benefit, I have included an extract from the Wikipedia web site on this subject below (the full article may also be read HERE), the other instance was at a Farm in Stirlingshire, where none of the people present understood any law (this will be the subject of a later article coming soon) and yet another incident yesterday – at the same Farm – where two Police Officers and two others new nothing of Constitutional Law, Common Law or European Law!!!

The second Farm incident (yesterday), included two Policy Enforcers from DEFRA (AHLA) and two Police Officers from Stirling Police, where, after I had informed them of the fact that we (a Farmer client and myself), were standing under Common Law at all times, they proceeded to inform me of the Statute they were serving ‘Notice’ of that day.

This took place at the Farmers dwelling house, where they all arrived unannounced and without any warrant. They were not expecting me to be there, so this was clearly an intimidation tactic, having four people present to serve a Notice, is bullying tactics.

Even during the exchange of my understanding of the Farmers’ Rights, I was constantly heckled from the two police officers and the female DEFRA representative who presented herself, as a Vet!. No wonder she didn’t understand the law!

The three of them, the two police officers and the women Vet (one man stood honourably quiet), attempted to shout me down and kept quoting me the Statutes and Acts they were attempting to serve ‘Notice’ of.

This placed the Farmer under considerable duress (he constantly told them he was making “no comment” and was “not going to sign for the Notice”, this too was also ignored), however, even though they were all informed repeatedly that, I was acting as his Lawfully Appointed Agent, they ignored this and asked me what my ‘legal’ qualifications were and if I was a ‘Lawyer’ (heaven forbid!), the Farmer also told them I was acting as his agent.

They then proceeded to shout to the Farmer, as though I wasn’t there (he was behind me at all times), often speaking under my arm (which was on the doorway, they were never invited in) and told me repeatedly that, I couldn’t act for him, unless I was a solicitor!

During this exchange the ‘VET’ informed me, “she didn’t know of the Articles I had informed her of” (The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and particularly Article 41 of that Charter), and that “she wasn’t aware that, Scotland was a Common Law country”. !!! The Police also stated this and told me …”no such laws exist”, they also threatened to arrest me for obstruction!

I politely told them that, they should understand these laws and rights themselves that, they’re supposedly enforcing every day, so how can they then not be familiar with them? I also stated that, one day, they too might be glad they studied them some more. I then went on to inform them that, Scotland became a Common Law country in 1707 at the Union of the Crowns. I further informed them of Scotland’s unique legal status as a bi-juridical country –  along with the States of Louisiana and Quebec for example. They chose to ignore all of this and stated categorically that, “I was mistaken and they would continue to serve the Notice anyway”.

The outcome of this confrontation was, that the Farmer (under duress), signed for the Notice, even though he did not want to sign it. I told him we could serve them with a ‘Notice’ ourselves later, and at least we had witnesses to this abominable abuse of several of his rights, and that all of those people involved in the serving of the NOTICE were acting criminally, and also that we could cite them all to appear at any later court hearing.

Now, whatever your opinion of the above incidents, it should be remembered that ALL of those ‘officials’ are supposedly enforcing the law, yet clearly they don’t have any knowledge of the laws they are meant to be enforcing.

Clearly there’s a failure with their training, I don’t blame the individuals themselves, the blame for this lies with their superiors, and I intend to have a meeting with the Duty Inspectors for the areas concerned, where I will take along publications from the Scottish Courts, the Scottish Parliament, the Crown Prosecution Service and copies of the European Charter, to give to all of those concerned so that, they can all see where they failed in their duty of care.

I see my own role as primarily that, of an educational one. I don’t want to tar all Police Officers and Council workers, as fascists (as some people do), if we don’t help to educate them, we, ourselves, become part of the problem and not part of the solution. This is clearly – from many recent accounts – having a positive effect in Canada, it can work here too.

An excerpt from Wikipedia on Constitutional Law and Human Rights, now follows:


Main articles: Human rights and Human rights law

Human rights or civil liberties form a crucial part of a country’s constitution and govern the rights of the individual against the state. Most jurisdictions, like the United States and France, have a codified constitution, with a bill of rights. A recent example is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was intended to be included in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that failed to be ratified. Perhaps the most important example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the UN Charter. These are intended to ensure basic political, social and economic standards that a nation-state, or intergovernmental body is obliged to provide to its citizens but many do include its governments.

Some countries like the United Kingdom have no entrenched document setting out fundamental rights; in those jurisdictions the constitution is composed of statutecase-law and convention. A case named Entick v. Carrington[1] is a constitutional principle deriving from the common law. John Entick‘s house was searched and ransacked by sheriff Carrington. Carrington argued that a warrant from a Government minister, the Earl of Halifax was valid authority, even though there was no statutory provision or court order for it. The court, led by Lord Camden stated that,

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass… If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.”[2]

Inspired by John Locke,[3] the fundamental constitutional principle is that the individual can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, while the state may do nothing but that which is authorized by law.

The commonwealth and the civil law jurisdictions do not share the same constitutional law underpinnings.

I also urge you to read (and understand), The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which can be found on the European Parliaments own website HERE.

The Charter is a very simple to read document, and it won’t take too long to read it in its entirety, but I promise you, it will have a long-lasting effect on everything you do in your lifetime.

By the way, Article 41 reads:-

1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.
2. This right includes:
— the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;— the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;— the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.
3. Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States.
4. Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language.

To ALL those Police Officers who think that ‘Common Law’ doesn’t exist, can I point you to the Crown Prosecution Services own website HERE for an understanding of where you’re using it every day. You might also want to check out the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office HERE where those officers in Scotland are using it every day.  Type in ‘Common Law’ in the search bar, for a wealth of information on the subject. Remember, ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Thanks for reading this and peace to you all, please circulate this to everyone you know.

Update (19/06/2012):

I received a call this evening (19th June 2012) from a senior Police Officer at Falkirk Police (I won’t mention his rank, to prevent any blushes), having had no success in getting any opportunity to speak to a duty Inspector in person at either Stirling or Falkirk in the past few days (the two main Police Stations in this area), due to both day shift and night shift Duty Inspectors being out on ‘incidents’.

The shortened outcome of this exchange of views was that, the ‘Senior Officer’ did not understand what I was saying (pretty much word-for-word what I’ve outlined in this blog), and he was of the opinion that his officers acted correctly!

I asked if it was possible to meet with the two officers and a senior officer, to discuss the nature of the failings in Police Training. I was informed that,’ this would not happen under any circumstances’.

I will write to him (as I said to him I would do), the outcome will be posted here in due course.


Scotland’s local elections – voter apathy

I note that the Scottish local election’s had a reportedly low turnout, yet despite this ‘anomaly’ the parties all laid claim to having won some victory or another, with increased majorities on the one hand and even talk about taking back control of ‘constituencies’. Remember, this is despite the justified fears about a possible record low turnout, although there are no plans to publish the true figure before September 2012. See HERE

I also noticed that the chair of the electoral management board (set up by the Scottish government to oversee council elections after the 2007 voting debacle), was none other than our very own Mary Pitcaithly (Falkirk Councils’ CEO), so no surprise there then. For she must rate highly on the most-incompetent-person-ever-to-run-a-council-ever  list. Although, do feel free to nominate your own candidate for worse performing public figure ever.

It should be remembered that, all of the people involved in ‘running’ elections are paid vast salaries (or other perks), to engage the public in voting and yet most constantly achieve next to nothing, as they all fail spectacularly to consult with real people and understand what ordinary people really want and need.

I have repeatedly offered my own services to Falkirk Council (free) and my offers to engage with Mary Pitcaithly specifically, have been met with responses ranging from ‘ not prepared to enter into any discussion’ to outright hostility and constant court battles with FALKIRK COUNCIL generally. Remember, this is a public servant, paid a vast salary from the public purse and whose COMPANY advertises a ‘Charter’ with publicly proclaimed aims and procedures that, she chooses to ignore or adapt at will.

Another candidate for worse ever public official has to be the one that, had an elderly couple evicted from their home, so that the official and her boyfriend could move into their sheltered flat, as ‘it was nearer her work’ and ‘saved her a lot of travel’. Poor wee souls eh?

Let the other nominations begin. The best of which I’ll publish for your edification and entertainment.

You might want to read this first though for more on this subject as, you might find your nomination isn’t as bad as some!

Parking Tickets 3

Update from an earlier article. See HERE.

After almost exactly four months to the day, I received an ‘offer’ to pay an amount of money to East Kilbride Council for a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’, I sent it back marked ‘Return to Sender No Contract’ and further marked ‘REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOUR WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITHOUT RECOURSE’.

I will of course keep you all updated with regards to any further ‘invites’ or ‘offers’.

Read this HERE

Getting a copy of a Court Minute or judgement against yourself – How hard can it be? Part 1

Having allowed a situation to develop between myself and FALKIRK COUNCIL, and where I deliberately chose a solicitor to defend me in an action later taken against me by FALKIRK COUNCIL, I am now in a position where I should be able to obtain a copy of the Court Minute and the Judgement that was made against me at FALKIRK SHERIFF COURT- easy eh?

To give you a little background, this was part of a continued long term attack on me by FALKIRK COUNCIL and the DWP (over several years), that was based on a personal vendetta by the top officials within FALKIRK COUNCIL (a company trading at a profit), against a much smaller company (mine), which revolved around a claim I made for benefit when forced to sell the business. This eventually resulted in a decision at court where FALKIRK COUNCILS’ case was found ‘Not Proven’ and the DWP’s witness was found to lack ‘Credibility’ however, I was found guilty on a ‘Technicality’ that resulted in a ‘FINE’ being imposed (surprise, surprise), the technicality was apparently a form I had completed in their office that had my ‘signature’. The fact that no one could attest to the interview ever having taken place, that they didn’t know who signed the form on their behalf and the fact that I wasn’t even there on the date in question, made no difference to this ‘technicality’.

However, now that there is a judgement against my LEGAL FICTION, I thought I would now have the Sheriff arrested for Deception and Fraud, and so in order to prove my allegation, I would merely obtain a copy of the minute (the formal record of procedure), to use with the vast amount of other paperwork I have, and thus prove the deception.

So, off to court I went yesterday, happy in the knowledge that I could start something that would maybe raise a few eyebrows here and around the World. Imagine my surprise then when I was told by the Clerk that, I couldn’t get a copy of the requested minute!

I asked the Clerk to consult with a senior manager, as I would seek this under the Freedom of Information Act if required. I was categorically told that not only could I not get this under the FOI Act, but that I would not get it under any circumstances.

Undeterred, I then went to the Procurator Fiscal’s office nearby and asked if this could possibly be the case, to be informed that they …’were not prepared to comment on that matter’. Now, I’m fully aware that there’s been others who’ve found themselves in this position, and like those others people, I too am more than a little tenacious so, off I went to the POLICE station opposite the court, to make a formal allegation about the Courts’ deception and fraud.

To cut a long story short, the Police Officers there were very polite, patient and indeed intrigued by the whole situation, although they also acknowledged that they didn’t understand the ‘Legal Person’ argument, even though I took the time to explain the CAPITALISATION of your NAME and the fact that all COMPANIES have their NAMES in CAPITALS – giving them my own company details as an example. I also informed them of the fact that, they could reliably check this information at Companies House and Dunn and Bradstreet themselves, in order to increase there own understanding with respect to my beliefs in these matters.

There also followed a short discussion on the meaning of *’understand’, where the Officers told me they did not know what the word meant! I then gave them a few practical examples of the definition, and circumstances where it might be used, which to be fair is not in their training (but it should be), I also told them that their command would certainly know the legal meaning of ‘understand’, but that it would be better if they knew it too.

However, It was agreed between the Police Officers and myself that the best course of action would be, to write to the court under the Freedom of Information Act anyway, and see what response (if any), I received. Then, with the evidence of the witnesses present during the trial, the documents I already have in my possession, take the appropriate action at that stage, as I would perhaps have a reply of some kind that should further strengthen my case.

So that’s what I will do and I shall update this post at a later date.

More information on this case is available on my main pages at including the fact that, the Sheriff often misdirected himself with regards to Benefit Law, and frankly if I had been defending myself I would have had him recused from the bench, as he clearly never understood the ‘Law’ he was meant to be making a decision on.

NB I used a very well known Glasgow Criminal Lawyer to defend me, and one who was well instructed by me on the Benefit Law governing my claim. He was also amazed by the fact that, he, himself could claim it, if he was ever in the same position.

It should be noted that I could have faced a jail sentence in this case, had I not taken the time to fully respond to all the allegations made against me over the years, and indeed on several occasions I pre-empted FALKIRK COUNCILS’ actions. The fact that, there’s a very long history of court action between FALKIRK COUNCIL and me, also helped my case. NEVER ignore any ‘offer’ but, respond to it positively by using the methods posted on my web site and elsewhere.

Also, seek legal advice should you find yourself in my situation, although remember your solicitor does not ‘act’ for you. Read much, and do not be afraid, look at what I’ve done and look at the actions of others. You will gain confidence over time, and if you’re interested in accompanying me, in order to learn, then please drop me an email, as I’m happy to let you observe me in action.

*’UNDERSTAND’ this simple word can have many meanings DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT including ‘agreement’, ‘contract’, ‘accord’ see more here .