Original subtitles

A Lawful Notice Requiring a Hearing

Has been served to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

They have been informed of the following;

From We the People

To the Court Clerk

Supreme Court of The United Kingdom

Parliament Square

London.

LAWFUL NOTICE & Required Hearing

For context, you are considered informed

that all meanings in this & all communications

are taken from the Oxford Dictionary of English

or as commonly understood by living men and women,

they are not to be confused with legalese or any other language.

All character layout, whether capitalised, lower case or a combination of both

are what is commonly recognised by living men and women

and not to be taken in any other way or meaning.

Our position in this communication

is that of living men and women standing under gods law,

also known as the creator’s law, natural law, universal law, common law etc

and operating outside of the jurisdiction of statutory rules or man-made legislation.

We do not work for any state department or the crown

or operate under a licence

as we do not require permission from another man or woman

to run our lives peacefully.

If you require the meaning or definition

of any word, sentence, or paragraph in this document,

then this can be done by submitting a written request

within seven days from receipt of this notice.

In relation to our requirement,

we understand that the Supreme Court consists of selected judges, from within your system.

We also concede that you will wish to select judges

to adjudicate in this matter

and to assist you in this process

we have no objection to using your place of business

and your selected judges,

provided they are of sound mind and mentally competent.

Any judge that fails to recognise a living man before them

would not be of sound mind.

It should also be noted

that any judge that also speaks to a dead entity [known as a person]

would also not be of sound mind.

We the People represented by John Smith [a living man & CLC Diplomat]

write to you as we require a meeting

to obtain three rulings from the Supreme Court.

The subject matter to be addressed

are the crimes committed against the people by statutory authorities.

These crimes are numerous and varied,

which confirms that these crimes are not singular issues

but are ongoing.

We the People

who stand under the Declaration of the Common Law Court 2019 [Exhibit 1],

put before you, a selection of different issues, which confirm our position.

While this confirms that we stand together

it is also used to confirm

that we have various crimes that they relate to.

Should you require additional cases,

we will be happy to provide them in larger numbers.

It should also be noted that this number was restricted

so as to assist you and to reduce the workload.

While we have attached an index of people and a copy of the paperwork for each case, we wish to list below some of

the issues that we are addressing, this is not exhaustive:

Council Tax issues

Tax issues

Bailiffs’ Unlawful behaviour

Criminal and Unlawful Police Behaviour

Kidnapping by the state

Unlawful detention by the state

Unlawful Imprisonment

Theft by using the proceeds of crime undertakings

Various Driving issues

Criminal coercion

Slavery

Unlawful activity by the courts

Unlawful behaviour by the judges

Unlawful behaviour by the United Kingdom Attorney General

Criminal and Unlawful Council behaviour by Members of Parliament

Criminal and unlawful behaviour in relation to bankruptcy issues

Theft of property [That is - children]

Theft of property [through unlawful evictions]

Theft of money from bank accounts [by obtaining money through deception]

The dismissal of employees for failing to be vaccinated

The enforcement of unlawful covid legislation

The failure to comply with Common Law Court Orders

The failure of the state to assist with enforcement of Common Law Court Orders

The Census – Criminal Coercion, fraud & slavery

The refusal to accept Common Law Court Passports and the people’s right to travel

The Refusal to accept Common Law Court travellers’ documents and right to travel

The theft of CLC Documents and the refusal to accept the authority of the people

The theft of motor vehicles by statutory authorities

The refusal of statutory corporations to accept the authority of the Common Law Court,

the standing of living men and women and the Common Law Court paperwork, deeds and orders.

In relation to the above issues,

although they relate to a great many cases,

they do in fact only require three decisions,

which are the same for each case.

Each of the cases referred to are irrelevant

until these three issues have been addressed,

therefore establishing whether or not the cases

should have proceeded in the first place.

Rulings Required

Confirmation that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER LIVING MEN AND WOMEN,

Confirmation that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER LIVING MEN AND WOMEN,

Confirmation that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts ARE BINDING THE PEOPLE INTO SLAVERY through the

use of the fictitious name, legal name attached to them.

While we are aware that the Supreme Court

has no authority or jurisdiction over a living man or woman,

we are aware that the individuals committing the crimes, against the people,

are bound by your court decisions.

It has become clear that under the Clearfield doctrine [Exhibit 2]

which we are sure you are fully aware of,

the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

has been operating as a commercial enterprise,

without full disclosure to men and women

who were deceived into believing

that you were a lawful authority and a court.

As the statutory authorities in these cases,

were also operating as registered corporations,

they were guilty of several crimes under common law

and any actions and decisions they have made,

were clearly an opinion and not lawful.

Under Halsbury’s Law of England,

in the year 2011, under the heading “administrative courts”,

all courts acting in an administrative capacity

are both unlawful and illegal,

this means that any man or woman that causes a tort under common law,

is responsible in their private capacity

and therefore will be required to remedy the situation

or face a common law court.

Commercial courts can ONLY operate with full disclosure,

by mutual contractual consent

and with equal consideration,

this they have failed to do

and have intentionally committed fraud with menaces

in order to make a financial gain,

this of course is unacceptable

and will require immediate redress.

Due to the failure of the corporations and courts involved,

to disclose the terms, conditions

and the lack of a lawful contract

that has been agreed and seen by all parties involved,

these parties were required to produce

a copy of their contract and confirm their standing.

There is irrefutable evidence

of clear profit-making practices

by the corporations and courts involved,

this confirms a fraud upon the people,

who no longer find this acceptable.

I, John Smith, write to confirm that the Common Law Court, Great Britain and

International was created on the 11th June 2017,

to address the failings in the statutory judicial system

and to provide a lawful remedy for living men and living women.

I write to confirm that as part of the Common Law Court’s responsibilities,

it keeps a record of declarations

for births of living men, women, and their property: That is - children.

I write to confirm that the Common Law Court

keeps a record of the business ownerships for fictious names: That is legal entities,

thus confirming that the use of them

without the owner’s consent, authority or jurisdiction is unlawful.

I say that I, John Smith have confirmed my standing as a living man,

having submitted my declaration of birth to the Common Law Court.

Accordingly, I have obtained a lawful court deed by way of a Birth Certificate

under reference BC, forward slash,17, forward slash, 1

which was issued by the Common Law Court [Exhibit 3].

My declaration and CLC Birth Certificate

have been established in a court of record

and as a fact in law, during a criminal case

in Paisley Sheriff Court on the 28th February 2019.

I say that I, John Smith, confirm that I have obtained ownership of the Fictitious Name, MR

JOHN SMITH and that I have obtained a lawful court deed by way of a Business Ownership Certificate,

reference FN, forward slash,17, forward slash, 1 which was issued by the Common Law Court [Exhibit 4].

The ownership of my Fictitious Name has also been established

in a court of record and as a fact in law,

during a criminal case in Paisley Sheriff Court

on the 28th February 2019.

In relation to this case,

the statutory corporations, judges, and courts involved

are guilty of binding the people into slavery

through the use of the fictitious name or legal fiction.

To assist this process,

the statutory corporations, judges, and courts

have acted unlawfully,

while ignoring the authority of the people

and by using criminal coercion, intimidation, and threats.

I write to confirm that the statutory corporations,

judges, and courts involved

are committing a fraud upon the people

to obtain their property.

This fraud also included

the failure to identify the Defendant,

either a living man or woman or a legal fiction,

and criminal coercion.

The statutory corporations, judges, and courts

in these cases are guilty

of using the courts and criminal coercion

to target living men and women

by using statutory rules.

I also write to confirm that,

in relation to these issues,

unless the judge could confirm that they had superior authority

to the Common Law Court, the people and God,

the Common Law Court deeds referred to,

cannot be ignored.

I confirm that, until such time as it is established

that the court had the authority and jurisdiction to deal with these issues,

they have been acting Ultra Vires, with Bias and have Erred in Law.

In issuing any and, or previous orders,

the statutory corporations, judges, and courts

are responsible for committing fraud,

theft of property, and criminal coercion.

I now write to confirm

that, as a person or corporation

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

statutory legislation is unenforceable without consent,

a valid contract, authority, and jurisdiction.

To force compliance, is criminal coercion, slavery

and a breach of our inherent birth rights,

this is confirmed and established by the Clearfield Doctrine [Exhibit 2],

the Declaration of the Common Law Court 2019 [Exhibit 1]

and a Common Law Court Lawful Notice, dated the 28th April 2019 [Exhibit 5].

I confirm that, the statutory courts are all corporations

and can only deal with a person or corporation,

they will never obtain parity with a living man or living woman

and as such will never have any authority or jurisdiction over them.

I confirm that, contract law establishes

that for a contract to be valid,

certain conditions must be fulfilled,

one of these conditions is that there must be full disclosure.

This was not the case,

given the failure to identity the Defendants in these cases

and the use of the legal fictions against the living men & women.

I confirm that, a valid contract also requires

the consent of all parties involved,

this was not the case

as We the People had not consented.

I write to confirm that the legislation which had been used

to obtain previous orders was statutory,

this was not enforceable

against living men and women or their property

and any attempt to enforce such an order

would confirm the use of criminal coercion and slavery.

I confirm that in addition to the above unlawful activities,

the jurisdiction of the agents working for the mentioned parties,

have been proven to be unlawful.

It is being stated by ‘We the People’, the Declaration of the Common Law Court 2019 stands

as a founding document and establishes the sovereignty of living men and women from birth.

This position confirms

that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts

have no authority to issue any order

against a living man or woman.

It also confirms that the court has failed to comply

with the Declaration of the Common Law Court 2019

and is therefore guilty of binding the people into slavery.

I confirm that, the statutory corporations,

judges, courts, and their agents

are guilty of the following crimes:

An abuse of position, Theft of Property,

Kidnapping, Criminal Coercion, Uttering,

The Failure to accept the positions of living men and women,

Refusal to Comply with common law,

Tyranny and Treason, to name a few.

I also write to confirm

that the Parties in the attached cases

have breached the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;

slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 7

All are equal before the law

and are entitled, without any discrimination,

to equal protection of the law.

All are entitled to equal protection

against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration

and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference

with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,

nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the law

against such interference or attacks.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion;

this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief,

and freedom, either alone or in a community with others

and in public or private, to manifest his religion

or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

Article 20

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

In addition to the above

We the people refer you to the following supreme court rulings

which establish our positions as living men and women,

these are applicable to our cases:

That the following supreme court ruling

confirms the unlawful behaviour of the various parties:

Montgomery versus State

SUPREME COURT RULING

NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL MAN

Supreme Court of the United States 1795,

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person,

an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only,

a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance,

is foreclosed from creating

and attaining parity with the tangible.

The legal manifestation of this

is that no government,

as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc.

can concern itself with anything other

than corporate, artificial persons

and the contracts between them.”

That the following supreme court ruling confirms the unlawful behaviour of the various parties:

U.S.

Supreme Court - Hale v.

Henkel, 1906

The Decision of the United States Supreme Court states:

"The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN.

He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way.

"His power to contract is unlimited."

He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbours to divulge his business,

or to open his doors to an investigation,

so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,

beyond the protection of his life and property.

"His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land [Common Law]

"long antecedent" to the organisation of the State”

and can only be taken from him by "due process of law",

and "in accordance with the Constitution."

"He owes nothing" to the public

so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Additional Note

The subject of slavery has been addressed by many countries

and it is deemed to be abhorrent at all levels,

a case in question was heard in the United States of America’s Supreme Court

and I state that this is applicable to the Supreme Court of The United Kingdom.

United States versus Schooner Amistad:

This case was considered in 1839 with a decision in 1841

John Quincy Adams [Former United States President] confirmed the following:

When a living man appears in court to confirm his standing,

he should be acknowledged as a hero and rewarded with medals,

he should be recorded as a hero and our children should be told about him,

but this court will not even acknowledge him as living

and have prosecuted him as a LEGAL PERSON, LEGAL ENTITY and NOT HUMAN.

If the Supreme Court were to adopt a similar position

to the South and the prosecution of slaves,

it would be confirming that living men and women

with certain inherent, lawful and moral rights

were free to engage in insurrection

with those who would deny them their freedom.

John Quincy Adams then asked,

“If the Supreme Court were to take the position of the South,

in relation to the issue of slavery, and that it was correct,

what that would mean to the Declaration of Independence?

John Quincy Adams suggested that,

If the Supreme Court were to agree with the South,

we should just tear up the Declaration of Independence,

as the rights of living men and women no longer matter.

I would take this further

and say that this is also applicable to the following documents:

the Acts of Union 1707,

Magna Carta 1215,

King James Bible 1611

and even the Declaration of Arbroath 1320,

which established the freedoms of all living men and women.

Can you confirm

if this is the position that the Supreme Court wish to adopt

in relation to the documents mentioned above?

John Quincy Adams was successful in this case,

freeing the slaves concerned.

I write to confirm that all claims

against the property of living men, women and their property

should be ceased immediately.

It should also be noted that unless you can confirm

that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts involved

had superior authority to that of the people,

the Common Law Court, the Supreme Court,

the United Nations, and God,

they were guilty of committing crimes against the people.

In conclusion,

We the People require you to issue the court orders referred to above.

In the event that these orders are not issued,

We the People would require a date for a hearing

to challenge the authority and jurisdiction of the court.

This challenge would not be time-barred

as it revolves around the issue of fraud.

In the event that you fail to issue the required orders

or a date for our challenge hearing,

We the People will require you to confirm

what authority you rely on to justify your position?

If you are reluctant to comply with the above

and believe that it is not in the public interest to proceed,

we require you to issue an order

setting aside all cases and issues covered in this notice,

without prejudice.

It should also be noted

that as living men and women,

who have obtained ownership of the fictitious name attached to them.

‘We the People’ have also confirmed our standing

as the beneficiaries for the named trusts.

‘We the People’ also write to confirm

that the statutory corporations, judges, and courts

involved in committing these crimes,

have been accessing our personal trusts unlawfully [Exhibit 6].

Within the relevant court rooms,

all statutory individuals involved in these cases

have a financial interest in the hearing

as they have obtained access to the named trust.

Accordingly, these individuals

should have lodged the appropriate tax returns,

and should this matter not be dealt with,

‘We the People’ will require a full forensic tax audit

to confirm where all the money went,

this will include copies of all tax returns for those involved,

including judges, clerks, solicitors,

barristers and the CPS etc.

‘We the People’ wish to draw your attention

to the fact that this case

is the most important one to come before this this court

as it concerns the very nature of a living man and slavery.

Your actions and that of the Supreme Court

have a huge bearing on this issue.

Please Note

To ensure that the people have access

to this court document and any replies,

we have lodged a copy of the paperwork

on to the Common Law Court website for information.

All future paperwork in relation to this matter

will also be uploaded to this site.

www.commonlawcourt.com

You are hereby given fourteen days,

from the date of receipt, to respond to this notice

and a further seven days

within which to hear this issue.

This matter should be dealt with as a matter of urgency

as it concerns life and death issues

which relate to covid, health and travel matters.

Subject Solely to the Authority

and Jurisdiction of the Common Law Court