Criminal Indictments Issued.
Thursday, 28 October 2021
Criminal Indictments Issued!!!
I Have Handed Over To A Court The Following Criminal Indictments.
The Court I Handed The Criminal Indictments To Was Nottingham Kangaroo Court ( Magistrates Court) Court Number 9 At 12:00. on 18,10,21
I Think The Mistake I Made Was Letting The Court Hand Over The Indictments To The Criminal Protection Service I Mean The Crown Prosecution Service I Mean Criminal Protection Service.
Let's Be Honest The Criminal Protection Service Will Not Want Any Of This Getting Out So I'm Sure They Will Want to Cover It Up And Pretend The Indictments Along With All The Evidence I Supplied With The Indictments Have Conveniently Gone Missing.
Please Note I Have Only Uploaded The Counts And Particulars Of Offence.
IN THE CROWN COURT AT LINCOLN
URN NUMBER
Form of Indictment
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 10
B E T W E E N:
REGINA
.v.
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE CHRIS HAWARD
Charged As Follows:
COUNT 1
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Aiding And Abetting Contrary To The Accessories And Abettors Act 1861
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
You Chief Constable Of Lincolnshire Police CHRIS HAWARD Otherwise Known As CHRISTOPHER HAWARD Have Been Informed By Myself Aaron ( Redacted ) Of Crimes Committed By TRACEY PARKER Of The City Of Lincoln Council And The Fake Magistrates For Committing Fraud, Perjury And The Fake Magistrates Are Never On Their Judicial Oath Thus Fraudulently Handing Out Liability Orders, Issuing Fines And Sending People To Prison Which Is Kidnapping And False Imprisonment. The Crimes Of The Fake Magistrates Continue To This Day.
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Perverting The Course Of Justice Contrary To The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
You CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE CHRIS HAWARD Otherwise Known As CHRISTOPHER HAWARD Have Refused To Arrest The Offenders TRACEY PARKER And The Fake Magistrates To Justice When Informed Of Their Crimes Thus Perverting The Course Of Justice.
COUNT 3
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Misconduct In Public Office contrary to The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
You CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE CHRIS HAWARD Otherwise Known As CHRISTOPHER HAWARD Have Wilfully Misconducted Yourself In Public Office You Have Done Nothing To Arrest The Offenders That You Have Been Informed of You Have Committed Crimes While In Public Office And You Have Not Fulfilled Your Oath As Constable. I Will Prevent All Offences Against People And Property And I Will Serve The Queen In The Office of Constable With Fairness, Integrity , Diligence And Impartiality ( Police Reform Act 2002 ) As You Have Interactions With The General public And Receive A Wage Paid for By Public Funds This Makes You A Public Officer And You Have Misconducted Yourself In Public Office.
IN THE CROWN COURT AT LINCOLN
URN NUMBER
Form of Indictment
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 10
B E T W E E N:
REGINA
.v.
TRACEY PARKER, CLERK TO THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE MICHAEL
SEATH
Charged As Follows:
COUNT 1
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy To Commit Fraud Contrary To Section 5 And Section 7 Of The Fraud Act 2006
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 7,1,20 you TRACEY PARKER And MICHAEL SEATH Issued I Aaron ( Redacted ) A Fake Summons To The Magistrates Court The Court House 358 High Street Lincoln LN5 7QA In Order To Make A Fraudulent Financial Gain.
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Perjury Contrary To Section 1A, Section 5, Section 12 And Section 7 Of The Perjury Act 1911.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 7,1,20 you TRACEY PARKER Committed Perjury When You Issued I Aaron ( Redacted ) With A Fake Summons To Appear At The Fake Magistrates Court 7,1,20 And This Was Supported By MICHAEL SEATH Thus Committing Section 7 Of The Perjury Act 1911 Aiders, Abettors And Suborners .
COUNT 3
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Misconduct In Public Office contrary to The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 7,1,20 You TRACEY PARKER Wilfully Issued I Aaron ( Redacted ) With A False Court Summons To Make Financial Gain Committing Fraud And Perjury As You Have Interactions With The General public And Receive A Wage Paid for By Public Funds This Makes You A Public Officer And You Have Misconducted Yourself In Public Office.
COUNT 4
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Perverting The Course Of Justice Contrary To The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
I Wrote To You TRACEY PARKER And MICHAEL SEATH And Asked You To E-Mail Me To Arrange A Recorded Interview In Regards To The Crimes You Committed In regards To A Fake Court Summons I was Sent. And Both TRACEY PARKER And MICHAEL SEATH Did Not Contact Me In For A Recorded Interview
Thus Perverting The Course Of Justice By Obstructing My Investigation
IN THE CROWN COURT AT NOTTINGHAM
URN NUMBER
Form of Indictment
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 10
B E T W E E N:
REGINA
.v.
COUNCILLOR RICHARD METCALFE, COUNCILLOR DONALD NANNESTAD, ADRIAN BULLIMORE
Charged As Follows:
COUNT 1
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Section 10 Of The Landlord And Tenant Act 1985
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Since I Have Moved Into The Property Of ( Redacted ) Lincoln Ln* *** In 2009 The Property Has Been Unfit For Human Habitation Due To Mould And Damp I Have Made The Council Aware And Nothing Has Been Done About It.
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy To Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm Contrary To Section 20 Of The Offences Against The Persons Act 1861.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
In 2017 and 2021 I Aaron ( Redacted ) Have Been E-mailing RICHARD METCALFE, DONALD NANNESTAD And ADRIAN BULLIMORE About Mouldy Conditions At ( Redacted ) Lincoln Ln* ***. I E-mailed Photo’s And Dangers of Toxic Black Mould To The Defendants And According To The Sentencing Council Under Harm Disease Is Defined As Factors Indicating Greater Harm.
COUNT 3
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Misconduct In Public Office contrary to The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Leader Of The City Of Lincoln Council RICHARD METCALFE Deputy Leader Of The City Of Lincoln Council DONALD NANNESTAD And Maintenance Team Leader ADRIAN BULLIMORE Have Committed Offences While In Public Office As You Interact With The Public And Although RICHARD METCALFE And DONALD NANNESTAD Can Claim Expenses Through Public Funds And ADRIAN BULLIMORE Is Paid By Public Funds This Makes You Public Officers And You Have Misconducted Yourself In Public Office.
I Provide More Evidence To The Chief Criminal Constable Of Crimes Committed By The Fake Magistrates They Are Not On Their Judicial Oath As The Magistrates Court Is A Registered Business So The Fake Magistrates Are Committing Section 2 Of The Fraud Act 2006, Kidnapping And False Imprisonment. As The Chief Criminal Constable Is Aware Of What Is Happening And Has Done Nothing About It He Is A accessory To The Crimes Of The Fake Magistrates.
As I have already issued a criminal indictment against Chief Criminal Constable Chris Haward And all he has done is continue to commit several more offences I will just have to Draw up a second but lengthy Indictment against him. The Police Are Criminals In Uniform!!!
8/19/2021 at 1:34 PM
IN THE CROWN COURT AT
URN NUMBER
Form of Indictment
Criminal Procedure Rules Part 10
B E T W E E N:
REGINA
.v.
FAKE DISTRICT JUDGE PETER VEITS
Charged As Follows:
COUNT 1
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy To Commit Fraud Contrary To Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 18,6,21 you PETER VEITS Otherwise Known as DISTRICT JUDGE PETER VEITS Made a False Representation of yourself When I ( Redacted ) asked to see Your Judicial Oath at The Magistrates Court The Court House 358 High Street Lincoln LN5 7QA You Told Me Your Oath Was Hanging In Your Office You Therefore failed to Prove Your Jurisdiction Thus Representing Yourself Fraudulently.
We will see How Impartial The Corrupt Judiciary Are In Regards To This Matter.
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy to Kidnap contrary to The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 18,6,21 you PETER VEITS Otherwise Known as DISTRICT JUDGE PETER VEITS wilfully Threaten To Send I ( Redacted ) To The Cells For No Reason Other Than to sooth your own arrogance At The Same Time You Failed To Prove Your Jurisdiction As DISTRICT JUDGE “THE LAW COMMISSION SIMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW”.
KIDNAPPING AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
1.5 Kidnapping and False imprisonment are both Common Law offences. They are defined in case Law and not Legislation.
2.1 In the case of LORD BRANDON defined Kidnapping as follows: First nature of the offence is an attack on and infringement of the personal Liberty of an individual, secondly, the offence contains four ingredients as follows: (1) The taking or carrying away of one person by another: (2) by force or fraud: (3) without the consent of the person so taken and carried away: (4) without lawful excuse.
COUNT 3
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
Conspiracy to hold in False Imprisonment contrary to The Common Law
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On 18,6,21 You PETER VEITS at The magistrates Court The Court House 358 High Street Lincoln LN5 7QA Threaten To Send ( Redacted ) To The Cells For no Reason other than to Soothe Your own Arrogance and you Failed to Prove you had Jurisdiction to Do so.
“THE LAW COMMISSION SIMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW”:
KIDNAPPING AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
CLARIFICATION OF KIDNAPPING AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
PART 3 FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
3.1 False imprisonment is defined as “ The unlawful and intentional or reckless restraint of V’s freedom of movement from a particular Place” .! This definition has been quoted without dispute in many cases.
Information laid by:
18,8,21
To all that it concerns
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access
You are advised to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says. I hereby give notice that the implied right of access to the property known as ( Redacted) Lincoln *** *** and surrounding areas, has been removed, along with all associated property including, but not limited to, any private conveyance in respect of the following:
1) ANY employee, principal, agent, third party or representative or any other person acting on behalf of or under the instruction of HER MAJESTY’S COURT SERVICE, or any other CORPORATE BODY (i.e. Company) whosoever named and,
2) ANY POLICE OFFICER who is acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and NOT acting as a Constable for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her people as expressed in the Oath of Office of all POLICE men and women, that is as Public Servants, upon your Oath of Office to serve "with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"
COMMON LAW JURISDICTION APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY
Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with Private Prosecutions according to, and under, the Common Law.
Any and all access to the above-mentioned properties shall be by strict invitation only and shall be subject to terms and conditions, available by written request.
We do not have, and have never had, a contract. And any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn. If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes as a consequence of this matter I will report your conduct to ALL relevant bodies and will pursue Proof of Claim in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability and under the penalty of perjury.
You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.
In sincerity and honour, without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,
Lawful and Peaceful Inhabitant of this Dwelling, English Sovereign.
Without any admission of any liability whosoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.
CASTLE LAW OR CASTLE DOCTRINE!
England and Wales[edit]
In English common law a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in self-defence.[56] This requires the jury to determine whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, their property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was reasonable.[57] While there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person did not act in self-defence, it may still be considered by the jury as a relevant factor when assessing the merits of a self-defence claim.[56] The common law duty to retreat was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967. This duty never existed when a person is somewhere he has a lawful right to be, but due to the repeal, now extends to public places, etc.
v
And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[12] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?[13] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
Comments
Post a Comment