10 November 2018
If you are savvy with the courts, specific to the Judge actually getting up and leaving the court, then you need to fully understand what the Judge is actually doing when he leaves the court and returns. What the Judge is doing is changing Jurisdiction. (Authority)
There are two ways to respond to such a change of Jurisdiction, you can either stop the Judge from leaving and take over the court with the Judge in the position of Fiduciary in which they are then Honour bound and Duty bound.
The second method of response is to respond to each Jurisdiction in the correct manner.
The three Jurisdictions of the Court are as follows :
Ecclesiastical courts are based in the scriptural law of the Old Testament and deals with a flesh and blood man/woman. This is the law of the land as land and man are the same word.
The canon law which is the internal organised law of the Church. While based in the laws of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the canon also includes, articles, sections and chapters. The Church and Holy See claim to have the Status of Moral Persons. The jurisdiction also incorporates :
Admiralty (military) courts
Maritime (commercial) courts
These jurisdictions were handed to the Inner Temple after Elizabeth I built the Navy financed by the House Pallavacini of the Holy See. Under command of the Private Crown, the Inner Temple, this jurisdiction passed over to Washington D.C in the contracts made after WWI. It was part of the carrot that brought America into the First World War, for Britain, the government had to support the creation of Israel. Ergo, Israel is the creation of the families behind the Holy See. They appear today to be subject to the Greek canon law straight out of the Crown Temple. This fits very well with the Greek symbolism surrounding Adelphi House also in the Inner City of London.
Admiralty and Maritime are the jurisdictions operated by the Inner Temple, itself tied to the Holy See via Templar.
This means that the Byzantine Greek canon has operated through the Inner Temple at least since the English Civil War on behalf of the Holy See.
Elizabeth I built the Navy, financed by the House Pallavacini on behalf of the Holy See, this in turn gave the Inner Temple its rights to oversea the jurisdictions relating to the Sea/See.
It took longer , until Vatican II, for the Templar Inner Temple secret societies to overturn the Roman canon and install the Greek.
Ergo, Washington D.C, as the head of the Navy, on behalf of the Inner Temple, administers all the cargo for the same. This is why all our birth certificates and governments are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
What this communicates is the fact, the British Crown is not the private Crown that is the Crown Temple.
It is essential you understand how you keep out of each respective Jurisdiction, this is determined by your response. As a caution you must fully understand the entirety of what you are doing or you will fail as the hearing moves forward. You need to remain outside of each Jurisdiction the Judge invokes, to defeat the action against you, you must establish your standing.
The Iteration Method
Establishing the Jurisdiction
When at court and you are asked to “state your name” respond only with your first name — “sean” for example, or “your first name followed by your middle name” but never offer a Surname —
Then you declare or admit that “I am here to address the court “in this matter”— this tells the Judge you are here, in your flesh and blood body, you are a Man/Woman. (Never be in court always be at)
This must be done at the very outset of any court case, criminal or civil, and you must avoid the whole issue of the “name game” entirely.
The jurisdiction changes and is signalled when the judge gets up from the bench and leaves the courtroom. When he returns, they have “ratcheted up” into another and more serious jurisdiction.
They always follow the same order and begin in the maritime (commercial) jurisdiction where the answer is to “wish for” remedy.
The second more serious jurisdiction is admiralty (martial law) jurisdiction where the answer is to “wish for” cure and relief.
If the judge dares to leave and come back again, you are both playing for High Stakes, and are now in ecclesiastical court (cannon law) jurisdiction….. Where the answer is to identify your self in connection with the Creator. A Judge who violates your sovereignty in this jurisdiction loses his job permanently.
The Ecclesiastical jurisdiction operates with your Title as Creditor to Rome, seen in the Live Birth Record, but there is a higher jurisdiction still, that of a Man in the image of God. To invoke this jurisdiction, you need to understand the English language, and yet this jurisdiction operates only within Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The Method
This is the “iteration” method when facing any action in one of their courts. You make these three “iterations” as you’re only replies :
“Your Honour, for and on the record of this court, I am a living man, the blood flows and the flesh lives and I wish for remedy…..”
He will have to get up and leave the courtroom. When he comes back.
“Your Honour, just to reiterate, for and on the record of this court, I am a living man, the blood flows and the flesh lives and I wish for cure and relief.”
He will have to exit again or dismiss outright. Most judges will dismiss at this point rather than risk the consequences of a final confrontation, but if he comes back a third time, you reiterate.
“Your Honour, to reiterate, for and on the record of this court, I am a living man, the blood flows and the flesh lives, and we are autonomous. Nothing stands between my self and the Divine Creator of All That Is.”
And there is the final end of the nightmare. He has no further recourse, no other jurisdiction to exercise, and he has to exit — permanently. That is Estoppel, through either concealment or silence, which means its time for the best bit :
You then hand the Clerk your Bill of Particulars which presents your fees with bank details….
Update. It is all important as to ‘whom’, not a ‘what’,… you charge your fees against, you must hit the Man/Woman ‘Who’ is ‘Acting’ in the capacity of a ‘what’, as a Clerk of the Court, Judge-Prosecutor or whomever, just make sure it’s a living flesh and blood Man – male/female.
The CPS may try to set up another case and the Clerk may attempt to assign another Judge, but running afoul in canon law leaves them liable for all they do. [1] See Moto Proprio
Consistory court
Arches Court
Database of manuscripts and Archives
Sancta Maria de Arcubus [2]
[1]
Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio On the Jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities of Vatican City Sta
[2] TYPES OF CASE HEARD
The jurisdiction of the Court of Arches was in all matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts in general. The cases are divided into two categories, the ‘instance’ cases between two parties, which included cases of defamation of character, and matrimonial and testamentary cases until 1858, and ‘ex officio’ cases prosecuted by, or on behalf of, the judge. The latter included cases of lay and clerical discipline, or ‘correction’, and parish affairs, that is church fabric, faculties, church rates, tithes, etc. There are also a few cases of officials of inferior courts being sued for illegal practices, and proctors suing for the payment of their fees.
In comparing the types of cases heard between 1660 and 1800, and those heard after that date, it is clearly seen how the range of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was declining, especially during the nineteenth century. The incidence of some types of case, such as defamation of character and correction for immoral behaviour, declined of their own accord as public attitudes changed, and they were no longer thought to be a fit field for interference. On the other hand (following the Court of Probate Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857) the establishment of the Court of Divorce, Probate and Admiralty in 1858 removed at once two of the most important fields of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, matrimonial and testamentary cases. This transfer of jurisdiction over marriage and probate to the civil courts caused a dramatic fall in the number of cases heard. Between 1800 and 1858 some 860 cases were heard before the Court of Arches, between 1859 and 1900 only 136 cases were heard. The compulsory payment of church rates was abolished in 1868 and the payment of tithes in 1936. The increased use of letters of request [a procedure designed to bypass the inferior courts and avoid the expensive delays incurred in an appeal] illustrates the decline in the practice of ecclesiastical law. The majority of cases remaining within the court’s jurisdiction were cases of disputed faculties, which had previously been a very small proportion of the cases heard, and cases of clerical discipline. During the nineteenth century three acts defined and elaborated the procedure for dealing with various aspects of clerical indiscipline and encouraged such cases to be submitted to the Court of Arches. The Church Discipline Act of 1843 and the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 defined the procedure of appeal from local courts to the Court of Arches, and the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874 set up a new system for the trial of cases of ritualism but the judge appointed under the act was the Dean of the Arches.
Throughout the period covered by these records between one third and one quarter of the cases came from London and the Home Counties. Up to 1800 nearly one third of the cases tried related to the probate of wills, about 11% to defamation of character, 4% to clerical discipline, divorce or separation 4% and the non-payment of rates or tithes 5% and 4% respectively. Other cases occupied a comparatively small proportion of the court’s time. After 1800 cases of defamation are down to 1%, testamentary cases decline to 14% but cases of divorce are up to 25% and cases of clerical discipline up to 20%. The table below lists all categories of cases which came within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts.
Matrimonial Cases :
Divorce or separation – ‘a mensa et thoro’: adultery; cruelty
Nullity of marriage – separation ‘a vinculo’: consanguinuity, affinity or incest; impotence or frigidity; precontract or bigamy; lunacy; minority
Marriage contracts of ‘sponsalita’ (espousals)
Jactitation of marriage
Restitution of conjugal rights
Testamentary Cases:
Subtraction of legacies
Probate
Administration
Exhibition of inventories
Defamation of Character
Lay Discipline :
Incontinence or correction of morals
Non attendance at church or Holy Communion
Brawling or misbehaviour in church or churchyard
Clerical Discipline :
Incontinence
Negligence
Dilapidations
Simony and disputed appointments
Ritualism
Church Affairs :
Non payment of tithes
Non payment of rates
Churchwardens – disputed elections; disputed accounts; failure to take oaths
Pews, disputed rights to
Faculties
FURTHER SOURCES
‘Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission’, 1883;
Account by Sir Lewis Dibdin of the administrative history of the Court and the custodial history of its records in ‘The Guardian’, 16 Jan 1914, pp 83-84;
Doreen M. Slatter, “The Records of the Court of Arches”, ‘Journal of Ecclesiastical History’, vol. vi no. 2 (Oct 1953), pp 139-153;
D.M. Slatter, “The study of the records of the Court of Arches”, ‘Journal of the Society of Archivists’ 1 (1955), pp 29-31;
Melanie Barber, “Records of the Court of Arches in Lambeth Palace Library”, ‘Ecclesiastical Law Journal’ (Jan. 1993), pp. 10-19;
F. Donald Logan, “The Court of Arches in the Church of Arches’, 1251-1666”, in ‘St Mary-le-Bow: A History’, ed. Michael Byrne and G. R. Bush, pp. 153-168.
F. Donald Logan, ‘The Medieval Court of Arches’ (Canterbury and York Society, vol. 95, 2005);
Irene J. Churchill, ‘Canterbury Administration (1933), i. pp 424-469;
‘Select cases from the ecclesiastical courts of the province of Canterbury, c.1200-1301’, ed. Norma Adams and Charles Donahue (Selden Society 95, 1981) [Lambeth Palace Library, OB5.(S3)]
OFFICIALS
For Court of Arches officials (proctors and advocates), there are references in Arches Kkk [records of proctors and advocates], A [Act books], and Aaa [Assignation books] (see card index); Archbishops’ Registers [ref: Reg]; Faculty Office muniment books [ref: F I]; Faculty Office fiats [ref: F II]. See also G D Squibb, ‘Doctors’ Commons: a History of the College of Advocates and Doctors of Law’ (1977) [Lambeth Palace Library ref. OC 341.S7]; records of Doctors’ Commons at Lambeth Palace Library [ref: DC].
Deans of the Court of Arches :
I. Churchill, ‘Canterbury Administration’, has Deans from 1261-1504 (in vol. 2, pp.238-240).
From Dictionary of National Biography & Church of England Yearbooks:
1852 Sir John Dodson
1858 Dr Stephen Lushington
1867 Sir R.J. Phillimore (1st Baron)
1874 Rt. Hon. Lord Penzance (1st Baron)
1902 Rt. Worshipful Sir Arthur Charles
1909 Sir Lewis T. Dibdin
1935 Sir Philip W. Baker-Wilbraham
1960 Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Willink
1975 Sir Harold Kent
1978 Rev. Kenneth J. T. Elphinstone
1982 Rt. Worshipful Sir John A. D. Owen
2001 Rt. Worshipful Sheila Cameron
Further Study
1933 Bankruptcy Declarations And The Debt Slave, What You Need To Know
When A Government Becomes A Corporation, What You Need To Know
Trade V Commerce
Definitions
British Law