Original subtitles

“The UK Supreme Court was established in 2009

to assume the Judicial Authority

that was once held by the House of Lords

Like the U.S.

Supreme Court,

it’s the highest Appellate Court in the country

and only hears cases of the greatest

public and Constitutional importance.

If the panel believes a law

is at odds with legal

Human Rights mandates,

it can tell Parliament

to reconsider that legislation.”

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square

London SW1P 3BD

27 September 2022

Dear Mr Smith,

I acknowledge receipt of your emails

dated 27 September 2022.

I am sorry but the Justices and staff of the Supreme Court

cannot intervene in the issues that you raise.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK

for civil cases,

and for criminal cases from England,

Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Supreme Court hears cases of the greatest public

or constitutional importance

affecting the whole population.

Unless one of the relevant courts listed here

[and there is a link to the list of Courts]

has made an order affecting you,

you will not be able to take your case to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, not all orders made by lower courts

can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, we cannot advise you on what action you should now take.

You might want to get advice

from an accredited legal professional or support network.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Greenberg

Chief Case Manager/Registry Manager

On behalf of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

From We the People

Cruinn House

CLC Embassy

1 Wurzburg Court

Dundee

On behalf of the people,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail

dated 27th September 2022.

First of all, I wish to complain about the handling

of the peoples previously issued ‘Lawful Notice & Required Hearing.’

This paperwork was sent by recorded delivery,

signed for [and then th tracking number] on the 12th August 2022,

but was not replied to.

It took numerous phone calls to address this

and only after I sent e-mail confirmation

on the 13th September 2022, was this acknowledged.

Despite being assured

that I would receive a reply within the next week,

none was received.

I again had to phone,

only to be informed this time

that although the paperwork had been signed for,

you were unable to find it

and I was then asked to send an e-mail copy,

which was done.

In relation to this matter,

although I had informed your staff

that the paperwork forwarded to you

concerned issues of life and death,

this did not seem to concern them,

and the people are still awaiting a hearing to deal with this ruling.

Is this standard procedure for the Supreme Court?

As I can only presume

that it is either down to incompetence,

negligence, or criminal behaviour,

either way it is not what the people expect from the country’s highest statutory court.

Moving on to your reply,

the people are a bit confused

as you had pointed out that the Justices and staff of the Supreme Court

cannot intervene in the issues that were raised,

the only thing that the people had required

was a judicial ruling from the Supreme Court.

Does the Supreme Court not deal with judicial rulings

or are the people mistaken?

You then went on to say

that ‘The Supreme Court hears cases

of the greatest public or constitutional importance

affecting the whole population’

yet you confirm that they Supreme Court

will not address the issue of crimes

committed against the whole population,

by the courts, police, and the state.

What is more important than constitutional abuse by the state?

‘We the People’ again write to confirm

that we require a hearing with the UK Supreme Court,

this will be used to obtain a judicial ruling as a matter of urgency.

The numerous issues, including life and death matters,

has been confirmed in our paperwork.

In conclusion, as previously mentioned,

a copy of your response and this notice

will be published on the CLC website

for information purposes.

If this matter is not resolved within the next seven days,

we will be taking this matter further.

We the People

Subject Solely to the Authority and

Jurisdiction of the Common Law Court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD

Dear Mr Smith,

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 10 October 2022.

I am sorry but your documents

are of no legal effect in the United Kingdom,

and they are not binding

on the UK Supreme Court or any lower court.

“Common law” does not mean that statutes are not valid.

They are.

It does not mean that people

only have to obey laws they agree with.

People are bound by the whole of the law in the country they live in.

No country has ever given citizens a choice

whether to comply with laws or not.

If you send any more notices of this sort, we will not reply.

We suggest you seek independent legal advice.

We trust that this assists.

Yours sincerely, Robert Greenberg

Chief Case Manager, Registry Manager

On behalf of the Deputy Support Registrar of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Okay.

So, First of all,

both the original physical notice

and the subsequent email copy,

were not sent from any one individual.

It is clearly headed at the top of the first page

that this is a notice from We the People.

It goes on to say that,

in this case, the People will be represented

by the “living man” John Smith.

So why are both of their subsequent communications

addressed to a Mr.

Smith:

a completely separate legal entity

which had never been mentioned

in any of our communications?

Secondly,

At no point in either of their responses

do they ever address even one

of the multiple issues that we have raised with them.

They declare that

“Unless one of the relevant courts listed here

has made an order affecting you,

you will not be able to take your case to the Supreme Court”.

Our attached paperwork listed 75 such cases and 225 such issues

along with 29 prime examples of the types of crime

being committed against the People

on a daily basis

by offices of the State

for financial gain.

They then go on to say that our documents

“are of no legal effect and are not binding

on any court in the United Kingdom”.

Perhaps not Legally;

that is – pertaining to commerce and contracts,

but they are of Lawful effect and they are Lawfully binding.

And “Common law” does not proclaim that statutes are not valid.

They are.

But only within the Statutory system itself,

and by mutual contractual consent.

We point out to them

that it is within their own rules,

which their Courts and offices are bound by,

“That all Statutory courts are corporations

and can only deal with other legal persons or corporations.

And, that any legal person or corporation

is unable to obtain parity with a living man or woman,

And therefore, they will never have any authority

or jurisdiction over them”.

Statutory legislation is unenforceable without consent,

a valid contract, authority, and jurisdiction.

To enforce compliance is criminal coercion, slavery

and a breach of our inherent birth rights.

These things have already been ruled upon

by previous Supreme Courts

and stand as a fact in law.

We had simply asked for a ruling

with regard to the issues that we had raised.

As for “No country having ever given its citizens a choice”

We are not “Citizens”.

A Citizen is a pauper and a slave in Roman Canon Law.

And to insist otherwise

clearly breaches their United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

which categorically states that

“No one may be compelled to belong to an association”.

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude”

and that “slavery shall be prohibited in all its forms”

Might I suggest that they should seek independent legal advice

to brush up on their own rules and regulations?

“Ignorance of the law is no defence in law”.

When employees of the State

are allowed to go about their business

unchecked and un-chastised

firm in the belief that they are automatically in the right

and above the law,

criminal activity will always occur.

Is this the sort of society that you agree to be a part of?

Can your conscience allow you

to simply accept this sort of tyrannical conduct?

I will leave you with this

brief reminder of what the State itself deems to be acceptable.