Reply Am I missing something here ? Wrongfully arrested in December, then she answered for the capitalise name in June 11th ?
The one of the most important rights you have is to open up court, and seek redress for the harm that was cause to her detriment by that trespass, of false imprisonment.
We all should learn to gain the knowledge of language, recognise what is a language, what words means, as not to babble.
Study English dictionaries, law dictionaries, have our meaning to each and every word you use.
Learn to open up court, hold court (as not to lose jurisdiction) and then you can hold them to account for their actions.
We all liable, and can be held accountable for our actions, if we, are not willing to correct our brothers/sisters in their wrongdoing, then how can we be corrected, if someone is not going to correct us ?
Person (n.) Directly from Latin persona "Human being, person, personage, a part in a drama assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by actors in later Roman theatre.
Person man-made, artificial entity.
Man/Woman created by the father of creation, the one most high, the father in heaven, who gave us life to be free, and have the freedom of freewill.
Life is all about honour and dishonour, if your free and a Christian, you wouldn't allow this Man/Woman, Men/Women to arrest her without protesting her freedom, you call rights.
When your first challenged, never argue, and never be reactive, always, always be proactive, as that a right called freedom of speech.
If they and her have a different point of view, just give them a remedy to cure the situation, then your standing in honour.
They fall in to dishonour, if they don't seek a remedy to cure the situation.
1, Both Parties could've gone straight to court, the other party could've file a complaint, while if she knew her rights could have made a claim.
Then once witnessed and notarized by the master (master at common law) with her claim, and theirs with a clerk from the clerk's office, they could've witnessed them serve each other.
Then once handed that complaint she could've null and voided it (void ab initio) rescinding it to the status quo ante (destroying that contract/document).
Leaving them to walk in to court to answer her claim (which can't be rescinded)
2, They can arrest her, and I would've complied "Under protest and duress," as that is a right and that's the time to protest.
Then anything obtained or gathered is inadmissible in court as it was obtained and gathered unlawfully, against her freewill.
Then on her release open up court and made a claim against all involved.
Maxim in law " ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse".
3, Both Parties could've gone in peace.
Why would she, allow whoever arrested her to wallow in their wrongdoing by that trespass ? From December-June 11th ?
She allowed whoever arrested her to be judge, jury and executioner, by falsely imprisoning her, do people who know their rights, not believe in justice ?
If she had any friends, if they knew she had be wrongfully accuse, why didn't they " petition of right," that's what a "petition of right habeas corpus.
It is the oldest statutory provision still in force and is the nearest our law has to a sacred text. It is even more revered in America. According to Lord Bingham, between 1940 and 1960 the United States Supreme Court cited it in more than 60 cases and has done so again recently in the case of Bournedienne v Bush (2008), where it was held by a majority that the Guantanamo bay detainees had a constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus and that legislation purporting to remove that right was unconstitutional.
If she knew how to write that "petition for writ of habeas corpus," and hand it to whoever is holding her, she as just opened up court, and if they failed to "act," up on it can be held to account for that failure.
If anyone of her friends knew, they could've done so as well.
If you don't know your rights you will be trampled on.
It reminds me of use your rights, or lose them, if you don't know your rights then you haven got them.
I would have opened up court, and had this person who arrested me detained to collect their details, so I could update my claim and called them out by name.
I personally wouldn't be looking for money, I would expect an apology, the one thing I couldn't order the magistrate, to order the wrongdoer to give me.
They would have to do it of their own freewill, so as to return them back in to honour, and not die in their sins.
It would hopefully make them think in future, that they can be held to account for their actions, and are more likely to leave her alone in future.
It wouldn't harm to put the head of police enforcement on "notice," of the behaviour of their subordinates, as they accepted command responsibility when they took office.
The one who give up the fight loses by default, if you believe in "inalienable rights," know and use them.
When you open up court, you are not courting controversy, you stand on ever word on that claim, you believe every word.
And if you know what your doing by doing the whole process yourself, you can't lose.Am I missing something here ? Wrongfully arrested in December, then she answered for the capitalise name in June 11th ? The one of the most important rights you have is to open up court, and seek redress for the harm that was cause to her detriment by that trespass, of false imprisonment. We all should learn to gain the knowledge of language, recognise what is a language, what words means, as not to babble. Study English dictionaries, law dictionaries, have our meaning to each and every word you use. Learn to open up court, hold court (as not to lose jurisdiction) and then you can hold them to account for their actions. We all liable, and can be held accountable for our actions, if we, are not willing to correct our brothers/sisters in their wrongdoing, then how can we be corrected, if someone is not going to correct us ? Person (n.) Directly from Latin persona "Human being, person, personage, a part in a drama assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by actors in later Roman theatre. Person man-made, artificial entity. Man/Woman created by the father of creation, the one most high, the father in heaven, who gave us life to be free, and have the freedom of freewill. Life is all about honour and dishonour, if your free and a Christian, you wouldn't allow this Man/Woman, Men/Women to arrest her without protesting her freedom, you call rights. When your first challenged, never argue, and never be reactive, always, always be proactive, as that a right called freedom of speech. If they and her have a different point of view, just give them a remedy to cure the situation, then your standing in honour. They fall in to dishonour, if they don't seek a remedy to cure the situation. 1, Both Parties could've gone straight to court, the other party could've file a complaint, while if she knew her rights could have made a claim. Then once witnessed and notarized by the master (master at common law) with her claim, and theirs with a clerk from the clerk's office, they could've witnessed them serve each other. Then once handed that complaint she could've null and voided it (void ab initio) rescinding it to the status quo ante (destroying that contract/document). Leaving them to walk in to court to answer her claim (which can't be rescinded) 2, They can arrest her, and I would've complied "Under protest and duress," as that is a right and that's the time to protest. Then anything obtained or gathered is inadmissible in court as it was obtained and gathered unlawfully, against her freewill. Then on her release open up court and made a claim against all involved. Maxim in law " ignorance is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse". 3, Both Parties could've gone in peace. Why would she, allow whoever arrested her to wallow in their wrongdoing by that trespass ? From December-June 11th ? She allowed whoever arrested her to be judge, jury and executioner, by falsely imprisoning her, do people who know their rights, not believe in justice ? If she had any friends, if they knew she had be wrongfully accuse, why didn't they " petition of right," that's what a "petition of right habeas corpus. It is the oldest statutory provision still in force and is the nearest our law has to a sacred text. It is even more revered in America. According to Lord Bingham, between 1940 and 1960 the United States Supreme Court cited it in more than 60 cases and has done so again recently in the case of Bournedienne v Bush (2008), where it was held by a majority that the Guantanamo bay detainees had a constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus and that legislation purporting to remove that right was unconstitutional. If she knew how to write that "petition for writ of habeas corpus," and hand it to whoever is holding her, she as just opened up court, and if they failed to "act," up on it can be held to account for that failure. If anyone of her friends knew, they could've done so as well. If you don't know your rights you will be trampled on. It reminds me of use your rights, or lose them, if you don't know your rights then you haven got them. I would have opened up court, and had this person who arrested me detained to collect their details, so I could update my claim and called them out by name. I personally wouldn't be looking for money, I would expect an apology, the one thing I couldn't order the magistrate, to order the wrongdoer to give me. They would have to do it of their own freewill, so as to return them back in to honour, and not die in their sins. It would hopefully make them think in future, that they can be held to account for their actions, and are more likely to leave her alone in future. It wouldn't harm to put the head of police enforcement on "notice," of the behaviour of their subordinates, as they accepted command responsibility when they took office. The one who give up the fight loses by default, if you believe in "inalienable rights," know and use them. When you open up court, you are not courting controversy, you stand on ever word on that claim, you believe every word. And if you know what your doing by doing the whole process yourself, you can't lose.