I'm not sure what you're
talking about, John but I can
assure you the fault Does'nt
lie with me and I've not
sold any kids into slavery as
far as I I recall - certainly
not my own
I forwarded this to you
simply because I felt that it
may be of some assistance to
your research . It does
show how to reach the QBD - if
thats what you wish, and is
not "closed". As to 'four
divisions of the QBD, I
did'nt see this so could you
show some links to it or some
information which evidences
the '4 divisions'?
Btw; that email was not
intended for "circulation"
Ray
From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:patriots-bounce@freeli
sts.org] On Behalf Of john
TIMBRELL
Sent: 09 December 2015 18:11
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra
Hello All, Re Ray's
circulation and Mike's
involvement. As I have
previously circulated there
are four divisions of the
Queen's bench, But, and a
really big but, you unlawfully
denied access to the fourth.
The Queens bench common law
court of record. This is
because I, as a simple man
could force Cameron before a
jury because he has harmed me
at common law by giving away
my sovereignty (my control) to
a foreign state.
The fault lies not with
Cameron. You would expect
nothing more from such an evil
man. The fault lies with you.
You the man or woman that does
not take the time and trouble
to understand and object to
this unlawful control. Your
laziness is condemning your
descendants to slavery. Sorry
for the brutal truth , but it
matters to me. Go on: ask
questions of me to prove me
wrong. I welcome it. So far
all I have received is abuse
which convinces me I am right.
No big deal to me but to you,
you are giving away your
children into slavery,
john T.
_____
From: rayspost@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [patriots] Re:
Mantra
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:36:53
+0000
meant to FW you this earlier.
A lot there but looks
promising?
From: Rays1
[mailto:rayspost@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 December 2015 23:39
To: 'Mike Green'
Subject: RE: [patriots] Re:
Mantra
I'm sure your right about it
Mike, but the only one I
recall quoting was Bg's
peculiar taunting
email to John in which he was
being mostly sarcastic and he
did say the courts are corrupt
but
the sarcastic wording was hard
to understand. If you have a
copy of another where he's not
being sarcastic about court
action, I'd like to see a copy
and try to see what his
reasons are -
Presumably, he's not tried it
himself then?
Anyway, there is a QBD website
here,
https://courttribunalfinder.se
rvice.gov.uk/courts/queen-s-be
nch-division
which seems to show it but
when you try the contact
button, it sends you here,
https://www.gov.uk/contact
which as you'll see, then
makes no mention of the QBD!
The court is often mentioned
so it must be accessible some
way?
https://www.gov.uk/government/
news/appointment-of-the-presid
ent-of-the-queens-bench-divisi
on
https://www.gov.uk/government/
people/david-calvert-smith
Searching further got me to
this
<http://hmctsformfinder.justic
e.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForms.do?cou
rt_forms_num=&court_forms_titl
e=&court_forms_category=Queen%
27s+Bench+/+Chancery> which
seems to be a list of
application forms for various
matters to be
put before the Queens Bench
and high court. I think a lot
of reading is called for as I
said earlier;
section 4.1.5 of that earlier
Pdf guide to the QBD says this
......
4. STARTING PROCEEDINGS IN THE
CENTRAL OFFICE
4.1.5 To start proceedings in
the Action Department, a
claimant must use
form N1 (or form N208 for a
Part 8 claim) (or a form
suitably modified
as permitted by Part 4), and
should take or send the claim
form to Room E07,
Masters Support Unit,
Queens Bench Action
Department, Royal Courts of
Justice, Strand, London WC2A
2LL. If the court is to serve
the claim form,
the claimant must provide
sufficient copies for each
defendant.
The claimant will be required
to provide a court copy, a
claimants copy and
one copy for each named
defendant. Copies of forms
relevant to the work of
the Action Department
(including the claim form and
response pack) are
available from that office.
Alternatively, claimants may
produce their own
forms, which may be modified
as the........
So, it would seem that it's
not impossible to take out a
QBD but some legal expertise
would be wise
before making any case. Form
N1 attached. Do we have any
takers? Someone could always
write to
the address given on the QBD
website and ask them?
Cheers
Ray
From: Mike Green
[mailto:mikegreen247@xxxxxxxxx
]
Sent: 06 December 2015 20:30
To: Rays1; Patriots list
Subject: Re: [patriots] Re:
Mantra
Hi Ray,
You quoted BG yourself (see
below) where he chided John
for suggesting that we take
police to court as according
to BG, with which I agree, the
courts are corrupt. That is
all I was referring to.
As for the guide you attached,
this only covers
administrative courts. That is
not the type of court in which
I was proposing we take a
joint claim against BHH. I was
referring to a common law
courts of record. This is part
of Queens Bench Division but
the guide deliberately ignores
the existence of such courts,
access to which is free of
charge. It appears that access
to these courts has indeed
been blocked. John knows a lot
more about this than I do.
The only way we could attempt
to get police into court now
would be to bring a private
prosecution. As I said,
however, these are allowed
very rarely. Even if we did
get a high ranking police
officer into court, if we lost
the case it would be up to a
judge (or judges) to decide
whether or not we could appeal
the decision at a higher
court. It is not as simple as
John makes out.
Mike.
On 06/12/15 20:16, Rays1
wrote:
Hello Mike,
Well, I didn't see anything
from Bg about considering the
court route - only his refusal
to deal with it when
JT was referring to it so I
can't comment on more than
that about what he said (a lot
of my emails seem
to be going back to my servers
trash box for some reason?)
but, it appears to be that he
disagrees with
that route - has he researched
anything about it to lead him
to that belief?, if so, it
would be helpful if
he could re-post it. Has he
tried to do it himself and
failed?
I think we need to find a
list that we could store such
research for all to see, don't
you?.
That can't be done on this
list so, we need to find some
way of doing this. I suggested
an online list like
Yahoo but there was zero
interest from the list and
there is a real inertia here -
and in most other places -
when beginning to actually do
something.
So I'd suggest we need to find
a semi-permanent file hosting
service specifically for that
and which all
can visit at will...anyone
any suggestions ? I believe I
may have a large cloud account
that might be good
for this but I'd have to check
again. Yes, it would probably
be spied on but all that would
be there would
be our perfectly legal
research.
It's true that the courts are
corrupt - I've had experience
of that myself! I agree with
John-T though that
if the higher ones are
approached properly and with
all proper court procedures,
they still have some legal
honour. If they don't then
we'll at least know that the
game is lost already - and
have proof
You said this avenue appears
to be blocked but it does'nt
appear to be so according to
the attached pdf?
It looks as though a claim can
be started there, without a
lawyer initially, but there is
a lot of reading to be
done concerning the correct
forms and procedures which I'm
too tired to start to study
but any budding
lawyers out there might be
able to help? Would a
barrister be necessary?
Preferable but is one
required?
I think some like Ian R Crane
could have the 'talk' for that
if fully prepped?
I agree with you that it's
most definitely worth
researching so, how to start?
. Possibly by just
downloading forms to study as
a start?. Page 23 and 24 of
the pdf gives info about
procedures and fees for
taking a claim. It seems to be
only £200 or so; free if
disabled etc so maybe a
disabled person might
be the best to 'front' it as
they are not likely to be
chased for fees if the case
loses. Certainly worth looking
into further.
As to them incarcerating or
killing us, I suppose it could
happen but, if the claim is
made by an established
group, sharing all information
to ALL members then I think
it's not very likely that
they'd carry out a massacre,
No, I think at that point even
a spook would baulk and
refuse....jailing us all under
some legislative pretext
is more likely ('extremist'
views or the like maybe?) but
it would be a difficult case
for them to win............
or maybe not!
Regards
Ray
From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:patriots-bounce@freeli
sts.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Green
Sent: 06 December 2015 16:20
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra
Hi Ray,
I agree with Brian on this
one, in that I am of the view
that it would not be possible
to bring a successful case
against them using their own
corrupt system. I am not clear
on what method John proposes
to use to access the courts.
When I suggested taking a
joint case against BHH for
refusing to investigate crimes
that had been recorded as such
by UK police forces, I was
proposing that we use the
courts of Queens Bench
Division. These courts were
designed to allow us to bring
claims against individuals or
organisations that had done or
were doing us harm. However
access to these courts now
appears to have been blocked.
It may still be possible to
bring a private prosecution
against the police (Michael
Doherty has had some success
in this regard), but such
private prosecutions are
allowed only very rarely. It
might be worth exploring,
however I am of the view that
they will incarcerate or kill
us before they will ever allow
us to get the likes of BHH
into a court, and I told John
that many months ago.
Mike.
On 06/12/15 15:58, Rays1
wrote:
Hello Judith,
Yes, 'Our man Flint' did
indeed, drop a bit of a
clanger with those, shall we
say, "Unwise"
remarks he made. What struck
me particularly was his
scathing sarcasm toward
John-T,
(Mon 30/11/2015 10:24)
"My goodness
I have read it all now. The
courts are corrupt and do not
make fair
judgements so lets crowd fund
and use the courts.
Astonishing logic"
Bg
Of course, John said no such
thing; he did in fact propose
an admittedly 'roundabout' way
of a possibly very positive
action that may turn out to be
a successful route to try in
the upper courts -
if the money could be raised
or legal aid obtained or
whatever..
I agree now though that this
does raise a serious question
concerning Bg. Why would he
distort
John-T's words so much whilst
determinedly avoiding the
proposal at hand?
I'm not convinced he's been
"exposed" as some sort of
establishment plant and
provocateur or
"controlled opposition" and
will just wait and see for
now.
Regards
Ray
From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:patriots-bounce@freeli
sts.org] On Behalf Of Judith
Longman
Sent: 06 December 2015 14:35
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: Mantra
Jack & Mike
You are right. I have always
made excuses for Brian in the
past so thanks for exposing
him and opening my eyes.
Judith
On 06/12/15 13:43, Jack Lewis
wrote:
When you look through all the
emails Brian sends in reply to
us he sounds like a programmed
automaton spouting out the
same 'mantra' time after time
without any real reference the
emails he is replying to. Its
impossible to try and get him
to respond directly to the
comments made against him. Its
simply frustrating and
pointless in trying to
dialogue with him.
Jack
--
Unless you are a subscriber to
the UKPatriots list, all
emails sent through 'Reply
All' to UKPatriots will be
bounced.
--
Judith Longman
<https://www.avast.com/lp-safe
-emailing?utm_medium=email&utm
_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
email&utm_content=webmail>
This email has been sent from
a virus-free computer
protected by Avast.
<https://www.avast.com/lp-safe
-emailing?utm_medium=email&utm
_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
email&utm_content=webmail>
www.avast.com
