| <<< AVOIDING DEBTORS PRISON >>> We have spent considerable time studying this area/subject matter, and have several case studies under our belts, that back up all that we write about herein: TO SUMMARISE: NO Man/Woman can be jailed/imprisoned and/or have their Personal Liberty removed by way of and/or of on foot of not being able to, or not having the means or access to settle/pay/fulfil a Contract/Debt/Obligation, and to imprison someone/anyone for same is an "Infringement of Human and/or Constitutional Rights". Where at any point in ANY and/or ALL proceedings/cases, and more specifically where the matters involve are an alleged "failure and/or inability to fulfil a contractual obligation", the VERY INSTANT and/or MOMENT that matter turns to that of being a THREAT to your LIBERTY/FREEDOM, wherein it has now been Converted into being a CRIMINAL CHARGE, it would be and is an "Infringement of Human and/or Constitutional Rights" under Article 34, Article 40.3 and Article 40.4.1 of the Constitution; and under Article 11 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Constitution – Article 34: "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by Judges in a manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public". Constitution – Article 40.3: "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen". Constitution – Article 40.4.1: "No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law". ICCRP - Article 11: "No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx A KEY POINT TO REMEMBER; in relation to the way Courts view these matters, is to consider the term "MEANS". In the cases we considered, we found that "the State" went after People that by all accounts could not read/write very well, or did not have any understanding of what was going on, or were not represented legally or sufficiently by themselves, and by may accounts ignored, and/or were not aware/were ignorant of the processes that were happening to them, up to the point that An Garda Siochana called to take them away to prison, for their "failure/inability to fulfil a contractual obligation", after "the Court/State" issued committal orders to IMPRISON them, and take away their LIBERTY/FREEDOM. The cases reviewed, were specific cases, where the said ACCUSED/DEFNDANTS latterly challenged the validity of "the Court(s)/State(s)" Order/Decision on the above grounds, and the decisions of "the Court/State" were reversed, and/or were found to be invalid/illegal/unlawful on Constitutional grounds alone, but the Court FAILED, REFUSED and/or NEGLECTED to address the issue/aspect of HUMAN RIGHTS violations/abuses. TAKE NOTE: There are still, and there may still be tens of hundreds, if not tens of thousands of People that have served Prison sentences based upon INVALID, ILLEGAL and/or UNLAWFUL Court Orders, and that are still serving Prison sentences on foot of same Orders, without having MEANS and/or KNOWLEDGE to Challenge said sentence(s). These People both past and present, have potentially had their lives, livelihoods and personal and family lives destroyed because of the UNLAWFUL actions and profiteering of "the Courts", "the State", "the Judiciary" and the "legal profession". ABSOLUTELY ALL of these PEOPLE (past and present), that have been Illegally and Unlawfully persecuted by "the Court/State", have the absolute right in LAW to reopen and have these cases readdressed on grounds of them being HUMAN RIGHTS and CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS and ABUSES (the process of which is for another day/email and/or maybe covered in our upcoming publication "EVERYMAN'S LAW"). Back to "MEANS" … MEANS Being defined as: (14c) 1. Available resources, esp. for the payment of debt; income – Also termed means of support. 2. Something that helps attain an end; an instrument; a cause. There are some key words/phrases used in the above definition which are worth further exploration in more broad terms. If you are NOT a Man or Woman of MEANS (which in our view nobody should ever be, and/or admit to being); this can mean that you have NO "Available resources" and/or do not have access to "resources" for the payment of the alleged "debt". MEANS is also defined here as "income". BUT WHAT EXACTLY IS "INCOME"? "Income" ONLY becomes "income" when YOU declare it to be so. In other words, the wages, salary, commissions and/or tips that you get in exchange for your labours are not defined as "income" (MEANS), until YOU declare them/it to be so to Revenue and/or another State/Judicial body etc., through "income tax" declarations/forms and/or through a "Statement of Means", which of course "the Court" will/may direct you to fill out, although to force you to fill out a "Statement of Means" would be an "Infringement of Human and/or Constitutional Rights", as they would be FORCING YOU to GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF, and NO Court of Law and/or of Competent Jurisdiction can FORCE YOU to GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF and/or would give such an Order in writing. That is not to say that the Court/Judge and/or the State would not imply and/or strongly suggest and infer that it is MANDATORY for you to fill in/out a "Statement of Means". Nonetheless, they (the Courts/Judges) would still not cross the line and Make such an Order in writing, which is what you could seek. You could declare FOR THE RECORD that "I AM NOT A MAN/WOMAN OF MEANS", and that "I AM MORE THAN WILLING, TO FILL OUT/IN 'A STATEMENT OF MEANS', SHOULD THE COURT SO ORDER THAT IT IS MANDATORY TO DO SO, AND SHOULD THE COURT SO ORDER IN WRITING, THAT SAID ORDER, IS NOT AN 'INFRINGEMENT OF HUMAN AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS'". IN OTHER WORDS, you are verbally and/or in writing telling the Court that YOU ARE NOT a Man/Woman of MEANS, and that you are more than willing to work with the Court should they make AN ORDER that in LAW they cannot make, as this would be "the Court/State" admitting in and to the Public, that you are not FREE, not a FREE Man or a FREE Woman, and that they regard you as a Slave/Employee/Ward of "the State" and/or of "the Court", and as such you MUST comply with their Orders, and you must obey/do what you are told as a only Slave would. The Cat would be out of the bag then. For there to be a "Debt", there MUST be a "Debtor". This is something that in all the cases reviewed, for some strange reason, was not ever discussed, reviewed and/or considered by the Court and/or by presiding Judges, and neither was the issue highlighted by any of the Legal Representatives of the Accused, and/or noted or reviewed by the "HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION". All parties to all of the cases assumed and took it for granted that the said Accused was "the Debtor" in question, and nobody took the position of challenging the legal and/or lawful validity of "the debt" per say, or considered challenging the validity of the presumption that the said Accused was or was not the alleged "Debtor". The only issue the Courts were on the face of it considering was whether or not the Accused had means, and/or access to means to pay "the debt", which the Court concluded that they did not, and therefore it would be an "Infringement of Human and/or Constitutional Rights" to jail them for want of "MEANS", which was not just a reference to their "inability to pay" but also a reference to "the accused personal circumstances" and/or that they "suffered from depressive illness" and/or that they had "educational inadequacies". The term "MEANS" was/is extended to mean the Accused "Mental Capacity" and/or "Educational Capacity". THEREFORE: If you are not of "MEANS" as in, you do not have the Mental, and/or the Educational Capacity (means) to deal with the matter, and/or the Financial Capacity (means) to Pay the alleged "Debt", then for "the Court/State" to imprison you, the Party taking the action (the accuser) MUST PROVE that You do have the MEANS to deal with the matter, and the capacity to pay the alleged "Debt". Because the issue now moves from being of a "Civil" nature, to that of being a "Criminal" matter, whereby they the/your "Accuser(s)" are now attempting to get an Order for Committal, and/or to send you to Prison, and/or take your Liberty/Freedom away, the BURDEN OF PROOF shifts to and is now FIRMLY on the ACCUSERS and NOT the ACCUSED shoulders. THAT IS WELL WORTH RESTATING/REITERATING: "The BURDEN OF PROOF shifts/moves FIRMLY to, and is FIRMLY with the ACCUSER and NOT WITH or on the ACCUSED in ALL CRIMINAL MATTERS". They the ACCUSER(S) MUST PROVE that the ACCUSED has the CAPACITY and/or "MEANS" in ALL its forms and guises to deal with, understand and pay the alleged "Debt", and that they have and are wilfully failing, refusing and/or neglecting to pay the alleged "Debt". In other words, they must PROVE INTENT, which in LAW is a virtual impossibility, unless you admit it, or state categorically that it was your DELIBERATE INTENTION to NOT PAY the alleged "Debt". Of course the Court/State and/or the said ACCUSER have all sorts of devious ways and tricks, to pull you in under their umbrella, in order to attain/get a Committal Order. In almost all cases when and/or where someone is being accused of a "Criminal Act", the accused will and does unwittingly give evidence against themselves, which for all intents and purposes means that their case is over, all bar the shouting, and the sentencing. Whilst the rulings referred to above were not inherently bad, and neither was the reversal of Committal Orders, at the same time the Court was duplicitous in playing down the real and more important and relevant issues at hand. Since the rulings, the legislation in relation to this has been amended, purportedly to reflect the said Case Rulings. But even with said amendments, the legislation still stands as an "Infringement of Human and/or Constitutional Rights", and needs to be challenged as it stands. The State under the current (amended) legislation, still have the capacity/facility to IMPRISON DEBTORS. That FACT in and of itself has not changed, and the ignorance (lack of knowledge in the context of law), of People that are being Accused has not significantly decreased. The Courts and the State are still ploughing ahead with their Profiteering and their Illegal and Unlawful Committal Orders for alleged "failure/inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". This includes a huge variety and a very large spectrum of alleged "contractual obligations", from things such as tv licences, parking tickets, credit union loans, road traffic offences, rates and a whole load more; way too many to list in one sitting. Primarily "the State", "the Court" and the associated "Legal Professionals" con/scam People into giving evidence against themselves in a variety of ways, on the way towards getting/achieving COMMITAL ORDERS. The "Populist Media" are also complicit in facilitating "the State" propaganda machine, in misleadingly promulgating the idea that "you cannot go to jail for a contract debt obligation", as are a great many other media outlets and sources. In a nutshell that is all BULLSH1T and LIES. If you do not have and keep your wits about you, make no mistake, "the State" will take away your FREEDOM/LIBERTY in a flash, and if necessary, they will throw away the key, especially if it is in their interest to keep you quiet. SOME GOOD NEWS: At EVERY stage in any proceeding/case in relation to the above matters, there are a great many ways, means, methods, tools etc. to stop, slow down, strike out, reverse and FREE People from Jail, prior to going to Court, during the Court proceedings, and/or after a "Committal Order" has issued, and even if People are in prison. They are too numerous to mention here, but we will list some. Obviously the earlier you engage with some of them in the case or matter the better the outcome: 1. Do not ignore letters/notices etc. from the party making the allegations. 2. As discussed above, do not "blindly" send material/letters/notices back as "Return to Sender", as it may also be used in evidence against you that you are wilfully failing, refusing and/or neglecting to address the matter/problem/issue. 3. You could engage with the party making the allegations, ONLY in the context where you are asking them questions, and NOT EVER MAKING STATEMENTS of any sort or type. 4. Keep ALL your paperwork/correspondence in order and up to date. 5. Keep ALL correspondence/communication in writing ONLY. 6. It is NEVER EVER in your interest to fill in and/or sign a "Statement of Means" as discussed earlier. 7. It is seldom if ever in your personal and/or a family members interest to sign for registered mail/post. 8. It is NEVER in your personal and/or a family members interest to accept service, and or identify yourself to "strangers". 9. It is NEVER EVER in your interest in regards these matters to SIGN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. 10. It is NEVER EVER in your interest in regards these matters to GIVE EVIDENCE and/or make a STATEMENT. 11. TAKE NOTE: You cannot be LAWFULLY compelled/forced to sign anything, and/or give a statement. 12. At any stage YOU CAN write to the party making the allegations, and or directly to the Court/Judge/Registrar etc. seeking CLARITY as regards to the LAW. 13. You can/may seek "appropriate" and/or necessary adjournments. 14. When and/or if the matter turns into a CRIMINAL MATTER, then YOU ARE ENTITLED to see and have a copy of ALL the alleged EVIDENCE that the other side are relying upon, and may not be relying upon … ALL OF IT!!! 15. You can, if the case turns Criminal seek as "Gary Doyle Order" as per the DPP Guidelines for prosecutors (ALL the EVIDENCE). 16. Depending on the matter and the sage the matter is at, you can seek a "NOTICE FOR PARTICULARS" and latterly a "NOTICE FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS". 17. You can at any stage in the proceedings lodge various types/sorts of "MOTIONS", to move/order that the Court do/carry out various things in your interest and in the interest of justice being served, again this depends on how far along the whole process is. 18. You could lodge a Counter claim (which in most cases has to be heard ahead of the case itself). 19. Should you "lose" the case, then you can seek a Judicial Review, a Stay on Proceedings, or an Appeal into a Higher Court, and/or eventually into the Supreme Court and/or the European Courts. 20. You could lodge you own action/proceedings separate from the proceedings, wherein you can argue that to proceed in the current action would be unsafe. 21. Should you and/or anyone else find themselves in the unenviable position of being in Jail/Prison, another person (per say), could lodge a complaint/writ to any judge of the High Court that you have been unlawfully imprisoned, wherein the Court are LAWFULLY compelled to bring you before them to address the matter. This is called a "habeas corpus", and is covered in broad terms under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution as quoted below. 22. And Finally ... Remember: "The only time you lose, is when you give up". Constitution – Article 40.4.2: "Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such a person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to procure the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with law". We could go on and on writing about this issue, but for the moment this information should be enough to be going on with. We shall of course cover a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of most if not all of the material contained in this article in our upcoming publication "EVERYMAN'S LAW" (MORE ON THIS LATER). TO CONCLUDE: There is absolutely no need whatsoever for any MAN or WOMAN to be imprisoned and/or to have her or his liberty or freedom stripped from them, for any alleged "Contractual Debt Obligation(s)", if they take heed and cognisance of the material(s) contained in this article, and the support of the LAW conveyed in the Constitution and the Human Rights Conventions and Articles as discussed. Study and preparation is everything. ALWAYS check the sources and legal validity of the data/information/proofs/evidence/material etc. that you may be relying upon, and that includes ours. ~~~ ~ FINALLY TAKE NOTE ~ There is only so much material and time we can put into any (short) article/email. This article is a snippet of a much greater and larger volume of work entitled"EVERYMANS LAW", which shall be released in 2015. In the interim, you might read, re-read and re-read the material herein. If you cannot assist yourself now in slowing down and/or stopping any legal matter proceeding and/or progressing, then you need to re-read the material. * NOTICE * DO NOT ALTER OR CHANGE THE MATERIAL OR BODY OF THIS WORK IN ANY WAY. YOU ARE FREE TO PASS IT ON TO OTHERS WITHOUT EDITS ALTERATIONS OR CHANGES. THIS IS COPYRIGHT/TRADEMARK MATERIAL OF "THE COMMON LAW SOCIETY" THIS MATERIAL IS FOR EDUCATION AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE IN ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment