Blog Spot

The Age of Arrogance

posted 24 Jun 2017, 01:03 by mark: jennings

So it’s been a while. And as the thoughts coalesce it is apparent to me that we live in an age of arrogance.


There have been two game changing events in history that are often quoted to demonstrate to the foolish that things are NEVER as they seem.


The first was the revelation that the world was not flat but indeed globular. Imagine the paradigm shifting realisation that what you held to be true was actually wrong. That what you had been taught by ‘men of knowledge’ was wrong.


The second was the revelation that the Earth was not the centre of the universe but it was in fact the Sun. Imagine every man, woman and child who had pause for thought realising all they had been told was wrong. All the theories which were developed to maintain the illusion.


In these bygone eras it is forgivable to be misled, misunderstand the true nature of things. The average man didn’t have access to knowledge that breeds wider understanding. Instead you believe the knowledge handed down from the ‘educated’, the ‘enlightened’ leaders.


Despite the technical revolution that has been marching for decades now, the average man is dumber than his bygone counterpart. Dumber because of the reliance on the technology that was supposed to improve our lives in so many different ways.


So here’s the arrogance. The self important belief that we are near the end of a trajectory that makes us the master of all we perceive. As such evolved beings, with knowledge literally at our fingertips, how could we be wrong about anything as fundamental as the two events listed above. We believe the big questions have been answered and that is an end to it.


I was once told, that a question doesn’t exist if you do not already know the answer. At the time it sounded like a fortune cookie quote. Sounds philosophical but ultimately meaningless. It is actually an empowering thought. For example the question of space travel didn’t exist until we had rockets. The question of plastic kettles didn’t exist until plastic technology had advanced to a point where the question was inevitable.


It may be a surprise to many of you to learn that there are a large number of people out there that still believe the Earth is flat and remains at the centre of the universe. They have remarkably detailed and reasoned explanations of how this is so. Are they crazy ? Perhaps, but consider. When a paradigm belief can be flipped, who is to say that it can’t be flipped again and again. The arrogance is to believe that it can’t.


Accepting one knowledge does not mean we should dismiss all others. The oft quoted “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function” . This after all is supposed to be the ability that distinguishes us within the animal world.


How do we recognise people absent this quality ? They will always be the ones who rush to the discussion bearing all they have learned about the prevailing paradigm and regurgitate it like a gull feeding its immature hatchlings. These people puff themselves on their ability to skilfully waste a point of view through their ability to absorb without question, another. When that ‘other’ view arrived in their mind through no other mechanism that ‘they were told’ then it should be treated with extreme scepticism. This is no more than a belief. It might seem self defining, but knowledge is what you know, not what you believe.


If I’m to leave you with anything from this rant, let it be this…Question everything.

The voice in the wilderness

stay on topic

posted 1 Apr 2017, 05:23 by mark: jennings

An office discussion. A colleague who recently stated the love of ‘big data’ was hoisted by their own petard when an unsolicited phone call from a health worker turned out to be mistaken identity and they had referred to her medical records when it should have been to her name sake.


This turned into a much wider and bigger topic, mostly due to peoples inability to argue on topic. The use of examples that have no direct relevance etc.


Apparently driving offences aren’t considered by most people as being a ‘crime’. It didn’t take much to demonstrate that they are. But then the retort, they aren’t ‘that bad’. So I ask. There’s a hierarchy of criminal ?


Road traffic crimes are not considered to be important in comparison to murder or theft. It’s true. They are not. But they are still considered to be crimes. So people rationalise rather than do something about it. They don’t feel that they should be decriminalised or repealed for example.


So here’s the question to these people. Especially for those with children. How do you teach your children about ‘good and evil’ or ‘right and wrong’ when you know that you’re a criminal. Considered by your Government, law enforcers, the legal profession, to be a criminal. You rationalise that the crimes you have been convicted of are not really serious crimes. Or you just avoid the issue completely. Either way this is called hypocrisy.


Here’s another question. When are you considered to be criminal ?


Is it when you –

a.         Think of committing a crime or

b.         When you commit the crime or

c.         When you are caught having committed the crime or

d.         When you are convicted of committing the crime.


Clearly it is ‘b’ , when you commit the crime.


So the next time you people drive without an MOT, Insurance, Licence, Car Tax, Seat Belt, Drunk, Drugs, Dangerously etc etc. YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. NOT BEING CAUGHT IS IMMATERIAL.


Good luck moralising. Good luck rationalising that crimes have a hierarchy. If they are not serious crimes, why are they crimes at all.


SPOILER: The answer is already on this blog spot.


The voice in the wilderness

Your Constitutional Right to Drive

posted 21 Mar 2017, 13:09 by mark: jennings

This blog preamble is a brief explanation of the information presented at Court. The purpose and structure of the information is to let THEM know that I know their legal constraints. A lower court is bound by superior court decisions 'stare decisis'. They are bound by constitutional statutes which are superior to ordinary statutes. They are required to act without bias, to give you a fair trial, to make no error in law...

Read on...Enjoy.

The Constitutional Point.


Lord Diplock in Racal Communications Limited (1980) UKHL quoting Lord Denning MR said – "No court or tribunal has any jurisdiction to make an error of law on which the decision of the case depends”. Pearlman v. Harrow School [1979] 1 Q.B. 56 at page 70.


The British constitution primarily draws from four sources: statute law, common law established through court judgments, parliamentary conventions, and works of authority.


  1. Lord Bingham of Cornhill said : "The court has no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the Constitution …"  Reyes v The Queen [2002] AC 235, 246, para 26.
  2. Lord Diplock said : "it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based upon the separation of powers; Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them...the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral..." Duport Steels Ltd -v- Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142; [1980] 1 All ER 529.
  3. Laws J said “If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights, it will be declared ultra vires.” Regina -v- Lord Chancellor ex parte John Witham [1997] EWHC Admin 237; [1998] QB 575.
  4. Lord Bingham of Cornhill said : "As in the case of any other instrument, the court must begin its task of constitutional interpretation by carefully considering the language used in the Constitution. But it does not treat the language of the Constitution as if it were found in a will or a deed or a charterparty. A generous and purposive interpretation is to be given to constitutional provisions protecting human rights."  Reyes v The Queen [2002] AC 235, 246, para 26.
  5. Laws L.J. included the Acts of Union in a list of examples of constitutional statutes and, at sections 62 and 63, described constitutional statutes in the following manner: "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional' statutes…… The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights…… Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not……A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.” Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [Metric Martyrs] [2002] EWHC 195 Admin. Judgment in the Divisional Court.
  6. The founding document of a body is its constitution. As defined a constitution is – ‘The fundamental, underlying document which establishes the government of a nation or state’ and ‘A legislative charter by which a government or group derives its authority to act’.
  7. Act of Union 1707. Article 3That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain”. The Act of Union is the founding document of Parliament.
  8. Act of Union 1707. Article 4That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom…….to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom”.
  9. Act of Union 1707. Article 25all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ……shall from and after the Union cease and become void”.
  10. As an aside and to circumvent any fallacious argument, that the Articles of Union do not mention ‘driving’ or ‘cars’ and therefore do not provide protection as a defence to the Road Traffic Act (and others) I simply add. Ambiguity in a document favours those that did not write it, which is closely allied to the British law and lifestyle ‘that which is not forbidden is lawful’. The Articles do not mention horses or carts or even walking. It is clear the Articles include without limit ALL Freedoms to and from any port or place.
  11. The Acts of Union are the foundation of the UK Parliament. There is no provision to reform, amend or repeal the Articles. It is self evident that a government can not alter laws that predate its existence, especially ones from which it draws its authority. To do so undermines its authority to act. Even if the Articles could be repealed by the Road Traffic Act it would have to be in express terms, of which there are none.
  12. The Articles of Union recognised and recorded the pre-existing irrevocable rights of the people of Scotland and England. The Articles did not grant a right to ‘full freedom’, this would merely be a grant of privilege which could simply be removed by ‘ordinary statute’.
  13.  Parliament cannot sidestep a restriction in the constitution by a colourable device.Ladore -v- Bennett [1939] 3 All ER 98; [1939] AC 468; 108 LJPC 69.
  14. The Articles of Union are entrenched and protected in perpetuity which was the intention of those that drafted them, to protect the subjects’ rights into the future.
  15. Lord Diplock said “A constitution, and in particular that part of it which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the state are to be entitled, is to be given a generous and purposive construction. In the construction of statutory provisions which contravene human rights and freedoms there is a presumption of constitutionality.” Attorney-General of The Gambia -v- Momodou Jobe [1984] AC 689.
  16. Roodal v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2003] UKPC. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry quoting from Lord Millett : “the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual must be entrenched against future legislative action if they are to be properly protected”. Pinder v The Queen [2002] UKPC 46; [2003] 1 AC 620, 628–629, para 15.
  17. Richard Tur, MA. LLB Hons (Dundee) holds university qualifications in Law, Jurisprudence and Philosophy and has been Benn Law Fellow at Oriel College, Oxford since 1979 – Law Notes – [Thoughts on The Union of England and Scotland (1920) p 252] Dicey, however, understood the point: "A sovereign parliament, in short, though it cannot be logically bound to abstain from changing any given law, may, by the fact that an Act when it was passed had been declared to be unchangeable, receive a warning that it cannot be changed without grave danger to the Constitution of the country".
  18. Richard Tur tutors law students at Oriel College Oxford and should therefore logically be considered as one of the foremost lecturers in shaping the legal minds of law practitioners.
  19. Article 25 writes in stark terms. Any law or statute contrary to or inconsistent with the Articles is void.
  20. Lord Denning said – “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the Court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the Court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”. Benjamin Leonard MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd (1961). UKPC.
  21. If a void law or statute is used to prosecute one of the people and is done so knowing this to be the case, then the prosecutor has ‘dirty hands’ and is committing an offence.
  22. On the ‘balance of probability’ a Fiscal should know this to be the case. Scott LJ said – “The maxim that ignorance of the law does not excuse any subject represents the working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracyBilbie v Lumley and Others : (1802) 2 East 469, [1802] EngR 245, (1802) 102 ER 448. By illustrating the Fiscal has encountered this defence before would  meet the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and thereby establish the following –
  23. That the fiscal is aware he is committing a criminal offence
  24. Is committing that offence to his benefit
  25. Is committing that offence to my injury
  26. But for his criminal actions I would not be addressing criminal charges.
  27. The doctrine ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ applies and inherent in the defence is the principle that no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.
  28. The United States Supreme Court had decided in Lawrence v Texas that non-commercial, private intimacy was a protected right, the law making fornication a crime was unconstitutional. Fornication is directly analogous to driving in this context as both are ‘mallum prohibitum’ and both are ‘unconstitutional’. Whilst court decisions from other common law jurisdictions are not binding upon British courts they are considered persuasive.
  29. Travellers and Rights of Way at Common Law.
  30. Save insofar as they are clearly and unambiguously intended to do so, statutes should not be construed so as to make alterations in the common law.Leach -v- Rex [1912] AC 305.
  31. Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage "The only 'dedication' in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a 'right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.' ". Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191.
  32. Lord Slynn reiterated Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J said that a public right of passage is a "right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.". DPP v. Jones and Another [1999].
  33. Lord Evershed M.R. said, at p. 259: "The rights of members of the public to use the highway are, prima facie, rights of passage to and from places which the highway adjoins;”. Randall v. Tarrant [1955] 1 W.L.R. 255.
  34. It is the Crowns’ contention that the act of driving can only be lawful when done with the appropriate crown issued ‘licences and certificates’ – that the act of driving without these crown issued ‘licences and certificates’ is criminal – that driving is “in and of itself a criminal act”.
  35. In delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.” Regina v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210.
  36. The very fact that the Crown licences people to exercise their right of passage to pass and re-pass is prima facie that the act can not ‘in itself’ be a criminal act.
  37. Of course prior to the 1903 Motor Car Act, driving was a lawful act without a licence. The statute disregarded the constitutional rights of the people and criminalized driving ‘mallum prohibitum’.
  38. The doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ where a court is bound by the decisions of upper courts logically prevents the lower JP court from interfering with these clear statements on the public right of passage. The earlier constitutional argument notwithstanding.
  39. The Road Traffic Act is and should be considered unconstitutional.
  40. Prosecution Code (COPFS) - Domestic Law - “In considering cases the Procurator Fiscal must decide whether the conduct complained of constitutes a crime known to the law of Scotland…….the Procurator Fiscal must consider any relevant….case law.”
  41. This case should be dismissed. 

The Constitutional Point in Summary.

No court has any jurisdiction to make an error of law on which the decision of the case depends and no licence to read its own predilections and moral values into the constitution.

A constitutional statute can only be repealed or amended by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. In the construction of statutory provisions which contravene freedoms there is a presumption of constitutionality.

Where the meaning of statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient or even unjust or immoral.

If subordinate legislation cannot be construed in a way that makes it compatible with fundamental rights it will be declared ultra vires.

If a statute is void it is incurably bad. Every proceeding found on it is incurably bad.

Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual must be entrenched against future legislative action if they are to be properly protected.

Travelling is a protected right. The law prohibiting the right is unconstitutional.

"The Act of Unions' 25 Articles, the constitution of Parliament, contain no provision for repeal making them irrevocable and entrenched. Article 4 doesn't define a limit on the full Freedom afforded to the people of the United Kingdom to travel." Parliament cannot sidestep this constitutional restriction by a colourable device and "any subsequent statute that seeks to impose such a limit would immediately be contrary to Article 25 rendering the later statute void."

No person can licence another to commit a crime and prior to 1903 no licence was required.


The public right of passage is a right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.

Courts are bound by the decisions of upper courts with the doctrine of stare decisis.

The prosecution code dictates the fiscal must determine the complaint constitutes a crime and consider any relevant case law. Absent any case law in the case presented by the prosecution the presumption is no case law was considered relevant in the support of the prosecution case.

Ignorance of the law does not excuse any subject, is the working hypothesis on which the rule of law rests in British democracy. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law.

Given the prosecutions complete reliance on the Road Traffic Act and total avoidance in considering any other case law highlighted here, there is one inescapable conclusion. The prosecution case is self serving and has not been brought in the public interest. The insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence in contrast to the wealth of constitutional evidence makes it clear that criminal proceedings were inappropriate.

The prosecution has either made no assessment of public interest or has completely disregarded it. There is no victim and the right to cross examine the victim has been denied. Guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence was presented to show that the complaint constitutes a crime. In contrast the defence evidence highlights the crime is perpetrated against the accused and the wider community by the denial of protected constitutional rights and freedoms which is contrary to public interest.

The voice in the wilderness

Institutional Bias

posted 19 Mar 2017, 05:35 by mark: jennings

Mens Rea.


Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person acts knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.


If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though they were in no way blameworthy in what they did. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.


The Road Traffic Act Section 143(2) has no element of mens rea and not only avoids the requirement but states emphatically the ‘person is guilty’. This is ‘strict liability’ offence.


This legal principle removes impartiality, the presiding judge is already disposed to the idea that the accused is guilty. There can be no ‘fair trial’ when the accused is considered guilty by simply committing the act. Any attempted ‘defence’ is seen as nothing more than mitigation to the act.


In Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, 148-149, Lord Reid stated that - "there has for centuries been a  presumption  that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a  presumption  that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea... it is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that that is not necessary".


It is clear there exists a significant divergence between The Road Traffic Act and the case precedent in Sweet v Parsley.


In my recent road traffic case, I was told by the Justice of the Peace, that “driving is a voluntary act so it was my intention to drive. With the absence of insurance this is all the mens rea required to prove guilt”. Pointing out the flawed logic of such an assertion that ‘intention to drive’ is not the same as ‘intention to drive without insurance’ is lost on the legal profession.


There is an obvious institutional bias against establishing ‘knowledge’ as a prerequisite to guilt. This is ‘adverse presumption’ and its primary purpose is to remove the difficulty which a prosecutor may face in proving guilt in the absence of a presumption – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd. Without the ‘adverse presumption’ imposed by the Road Traffic Act the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to escape the legal requirements of the Act.


In Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] AC 107 Lord Griffiths said in R v Hunt (Richard) [1987] AC 352, 374:  The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the  presumption  of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end...the substance and effect of any  presumption  adverse to a defendant must be examined, and must be reasonable...Relevant to any judgment on reasonableness or proportionality will be the opportunity given to the defendant to rebut the presumption…the importance of what is at stake and the difficulty which a prosecutor may face in the absence of a presumption.”


Being found guilty of ‘driving without insurance’ can result in disqualification or 6-8 penalty points and a £400 fine. Establishing ‘special reason(s)’ in mitigation allows the court to waive punishment. It is ironic that the proof of ‘special reason(s)’ is to establish you had a ‘genuine and reasonable belief’ that you were insured at the time of the offence.


The authority in this circumstance is Marshall v McLeod 1998 SLT 1199, 1998 SCCR 317 : If an accused gives credible but uncorroborated evidence that, for example, he believed that he was properly covered by insurance at the material time, he is entitled to be acquitted.”


So escaping punishment by establishing you had genuine and reasonable belief that you were insured, in other words to the best of your ‘knowledge’, is permissible under the Road Traffic Act which determines the act of driving without insurance is a strict liability offence for which you are guilty with no mens rea element of ‘knowledge’.


Honestly. These people are beyond moronic.


Bottom line. There can be no crime without the intent to commit a crime.


It is fundamental.

The voice in the wilderness

Victimless Crime

posted 9 Mar 2017, 14:21 by mark: jennings

Victimless Crime / Racketeering / Extortion / Scams / State monopoly on violence / State mercenaries / Highwaymen.


Glossary of terms.

Quote “Those who rob Peter to pay Paul

Those who rob = Government / Crown

Peter = You / The victim.

Paul / State mercenary / Highwayman / Crown officials = Those in the employ or service of the robber.

State mercenary / Highwayman = Police (including militarised)

Scam = Fraud.

Protection racketeers = Government / Crown

Protection racket clients = The people / You / The victims


To me, this information is so important I will place the conclusion in the opening gambit following the accepted definition of the syndrome. The detail if you’re interested or sceptical is set out beneath.


“A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been made illegal but which do not directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. It often involves consensual acts, or solitary acts in which no other person is involved.”


"Victimless crimes are in principle "victimless" from a position that considers the individual as the sole sovereign, to the exclusion of more abstract bodies such as a community or a state against which criminal offences may be directed."


So you are the sole actor in a play in which you didn’t know you were the star. You are the criminal in a crime that offended no one.


You believe that everyone is sincerely making these claims against you are honest law abiding people. You trust them to tell the truth.


So here is the conclusion. They are the perpetrators of a huge lie. A conspiracy if you like. They are the criminals. You are the victim. It’s true that every crime has a victim.






My comments on victimless crime are specific to so called traffic offences but the syndrome most likely applies equally to all other versions of the same scam of ‘victimless crimes’. One day I may consider this proposition too and expand upon it.


It is said that “attack is the best form of defence”. Their attack is their best defence against exposure of the huge scam they are perpetrating on the people.


If you don’t believe this information, its not because it isn’t true. Its because you’re not ready. There are five stages of acceptance – denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. You may embark on this journey, you may already be on it, but unless you’re prepared to accept that everything you hold to be true is most likely a lie then you will never start down this road. Once you know something, rather than what you believe or take on faith, you will never be ignorant again.


A scam on this scale is of epic proportion and that alone makes it hard to comprehend the possibility of it being true. But remember this, the things you take for granted were not always held to be true. The earth was not always considered to be globular and the Sun wasn’t always at the centre of the universe. These accepted facts may once again be redefined in the future and held to be self evident at that time. Be ready to accept that things are seldom as they seem.




Why are they the criminals ?


People have a constitutionally protected right of passage. The constitution in Britain is made up from case law, statute and tradition. Moreover the founding document (constitution) of the British parliament, The Acts of Union, has no Article allowing repeal of the Act. These are 25 entrenched Articles to protect forever the people of the Union against the excesses of Government.


Your constitutional rights at a glance –


Act of Union 1707. Article 4That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom…….to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom”.


Act of Union 1707. Article 25all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ……shall from and after the Union cease and become void”.


Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage "The only 'dedication' in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal description is a 'right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.' ". Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191.


Lord Slynn reiterated Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J said that a public right of passage is a "right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.". DPP v. Jones and Another [1999].


Lord Evershed M.R. said, at p. 259: "The rights of members of the public to use the highway are, prima facie, rights of passage to and from places which the highway adjoins;”. Randall v. Tarrant [1955] 1 W.L.R. 255.


To relinquish your rights you have to consent. If you are removed of your rights it will be by deceit or force. Once you are aware that a deceit has been perpetrated, your rights return to you by simply acknowledging the deceit and taking them back, with force if required.


And here is the rub. The state has a monopoly on force. If you stand up for your rights they will stamp on you. If you stamp back…they can and will stamp harder.


Some of you may be throwing your hands up at this point with my comment about “standing up for your rights” and the many brave people that have done this with success. To be clear. Success in this area has been on ‘civil rights’, the privileges granted by Governments. Civil rights are not real rights, they are made up. For example, the right to vote. A government grant to keep the people engaged in a process that never delivers what is expected from that engagement.


There are two divisions of people in the context of this subject.

  • There are people involved in organised crime including the unwitting servants to that end. Governments, Mafia, Police, Courts etc. and
  • The victims of organised crime.


People involved in organised crimes fall broadly into two categories.

  • Primary psychopaths, estimated at 4% four percent of the population.
  • Secondary psychopaths who could number as high as 20% twenty percent of the population.


Secondary psychopaths are the foot soldiers of the primary perpetrators. They justify what they are doing in a whole manner of ways to excuse what they know to be wrong. This is the function that allows them to ‘sleep at night’. Primary psychopaths make no such justification.


The quote attributed to Stalin, “useful idiots” applies to all people who are prepared to rationalise immoral behaviour as “just following orders”.


Incidentally, there is a test you can take to determine if you fall on the psychopathic spectrum. Check it online if you’re curious.




Epicycles are the ‘patches’ placed over the ‘holes’ in prevailing theories. They shore up, prop and support the theory that is starting to unravel. The prevailing theory isn’t necessarily malicious in its proposition, it is probably an innocent attempt to rationalise our world. But when it is clung to in the face of contrary overwhelming evidence then bad things usually happen to those that are trying to better explain the deficiencies in the theory.


Take for example, “the earth is the centre of the universe”. Innocent enough. Man trying to explain and understand our position in the order of things. When observations started to see problems with the theory, epicycles tried to explain these in a way that maintained the paradigm. They became more and more convoluted. Finally the only obvious theory put the sun at the centre of the universe and all the epicycles fell away to reveal this as the simplest explanation.


Once you accept there is always a victim in crime, then you have to consider that someone is lying to you when you hear the phrase “victimless crime”. It took me a while to reconcile the peoples constitutional protected right of passage with prosecutions in the legal system for exercising that right which includes the epicycle of victimless crime. The answer was so obvious and hidden in plain sight one can only sit back and say of course. It all becomes simple at that point.


A huge lie to keep the people in place. Paying into a massive worldwide scam that we’re told is in the “public interest”. Like so many (probably all) government edicts, the “writing on the tin” is the opposite to the intent.


Take for example –

Criminal Justice’ its not where criminals get societies justice, its where the justice is criminal. Criminal is the adjective or


Social Care’ its not care for the vulnerable, its where the vulnerable are institutionally abused. Think of forced child removal into a state funded foster system and you’re getting closer to the truth. Where parents forced through ‘Family Courts’ can’t speak of the institutional injustices for threat of being imprisoned.


And honestly. What can you expect from an organisation which by any ‘observational definition’ is corrupt, immoral and criminal to its core. Look up the ‘real’ definition for government and it will not be the same as what you observe.




How did we get into this situation ?


We lived in small communities where we placed certain members of the community into trusted positions to better administer the ‘common good’.


Communities grew and coalesced and the link to these members became more tenuous. We didn’t know them directly. But the common good was still being administered fairly and as expected. Mostly.


It really fell apart when the Romans pitched up and the rest is history. The price of their settlement of Britain is massive. The benefits are undoubtedly enjoyed to this day but it was all premised on an arrogance of superiority and then as now the trusted positions were filled with greedy self interested people who know nothing of common good, nor do they care. They do the bidding of their ‘superiors’, the primary psychopaths.


Organised crime and therefore organised criminals work together to ensure their continued benefit at the expense of the victims. Those that are not criminal or organised.


It makes perfect sense for them to create a ‘legitimate’ strand to their business to counterpoint their ‘illegitimate’ business. It’s the same notion as ‘no good without evil’. Governments exist to legislate against criminals which increases the business market for the criminals. If you consider it to be two distinct entities it is a symbiosis but in fact it is really one organism designed to constantly oppress the unorganised people.


If it was two distinct entities there would be no persecution of the people they are trusted to serve. There would be no legislation that criminalizes the people where there are no victims. It is self evident.


Legislation does not prevent crime. If it did, there would be no crime. It keeps the law abiding within the fence. If you transgress, you’re a criminal in a crime with no victim. Public opinion and peoples eagerness to please the community in which they live and work ensures most people never transgress either by accident or intent. Any accidental transgression is considered to be their fault for which they must atone. It is self policing for the criminal overlords requiring almost no intervention. This is how a large population can be managed with such a small army of militarised state mercenaries.




Its all upside down.


Nearly all people are so well conditioned by years of relentless indoctrination, they never even stop to contemplate who is the victim. They are being charged with an offence and they adopt a position of defence, but who have they offended. This is the birth of the victimless crime. The charge is the attack their response is to defend.


Who coined the phrase ? We’ll probably never know. But it is certainly a clever introduction of a phrase to describe the situation into which you are now being sucked. Probably introduced by the very organism that is perpetrating the scam. Their attack is their best form of defence, and its been working for centuries.


Honed and perfected from one money grabbing scam to the next until we have the perfect highway robbery scam. The state has side stepped the whole issue, and we have allowed them. The scam is a protection racket to extort money and compliance from the traveller in true highwayman style. But on steroids.


A highwayman will stop you, threaten you, take your stuff and never be seen again. The state will stop you, threaten you, take your stuff, threaten you to come to court, take more of your stuff, punish you with more threats and kick you out in the street. Any hickup in your payment plan and you will be threatened again. They are relentless. At least with a robber, you have the opportunity to beat them off. Try that with the state and you will be severely beaten by their highwaymen and punished even harder and have even more stuff taken.


The State is a well funded and well organised criminal syndicate. It perpetrates various scams and rackets against the people to extort money and ensures compliance through well motivated, well funded and well trained state mercenaries who always hunt in groups of two or more. Additional mercenaries can be called upon with alarmingly fast response times to ensure any resistance is quickly subdued. The highwaymen operate through a network of teams, have state of the art communication and recording technology. They will forcefully demand submission if required, this force being condoned as necessary and any attempted defence to these advances is considered criminal in itself which exacerbates the worsening predicament.


This soliloquy takes the most accepted descriptions for the topic headings and directs them in the consideration of traffic offences.


A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been made illegal by statute. Some of these laws produce secondary crime, and all create new 'criminals' many of whom are otherwise law-abiding citizens, even people in authority.


Criminal penalties for victimless crimes create monopoly profits for the state. This crime tariff encourages the growth of sophisticated and well organised scams which proliferate and diversify into other areas of crime against the people. These large profits provide ample funds to ensure complete loyalty of the 'useful idiots' in keeping the people in place under the burden of the state. The robber of Peter to pay Paul can always rely on Paul.


The state which was created by the people for the convenience of the people is now a rabid dog, biting at the hand of its master.


Consider the driving licence. People have the constitutionally protected right of passage without let or hindrance. This right is relinquished when we apply for a driving licence and we accept the privilege in exchange. Everyone should appreciate and understand rights can not be taken under colour of law, they can only be surrendered or taken by deceit. Privileges are granted by the issuing 'authority' (and I use that term extremely loosely) and can be revoked for any reason deemed necessary to maintain their 'authority'.


If you are caught driving without a licence, you will be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, fined and your licence will be endorsed with points. All this is to fund the criminal state under the pretence of punishing you to behave better in future and to respect of your rabid dog master. As you will have gathered by now, the crime for which you were processed was victimless. The racket is a protection racket. Pay for your licence, follow the rules and you will be safe from the state mercenaries. Disobey and you will be extorted and subjected to the states monopoly on violence.


Take away the requirement for a licence. There is no crime, there never were any victims after all. No money will be extorted by the criminal state under any pretence. And the people will return to their constitutional right of passage without let or hindrance. The solution is simpler than you expect. The driving licence was introduced in 1903. The criminal institution that deprives the right of passage is built on that single foundation.






“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist.”


Conducting a racket is racketeering. The racket exists as both the problem and its solution and is used as a method of extortion. The most common example of a racket is the "protection racket".


Normally a protection racket is considered to be a scheme whereby a group provides protection to businesses or other groups through violence outside the sanction of the law. It should be clear by now that the state racket operates expressly within their sanction of law. Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers refrain from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients. When their clients fail to maintain their monthly subscriptions the state funded mercenaries are unleashed with the credible threat of violence.


Protection rackets are often indistinguishable in practice from extortion rackets.


Protection racketeers establish what they hope will be indefinitely long bonds with their clients (sound familiar ? Government / People). This allows the racketeers to publicly declare a client to be under their protection (Foreign Governments know to stay on their turf. Unless you’re one of the Big Four. Russia, United States of America, United Kingdom, France, then you do pretty much what you want with impunity). Thus, thieves and other predators will have little confusion as to who is and isn't protected.






Extortion is a criminal offence commonly practiced by organized crime groups to obtain money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion and should be distinguished from robbery.


In robbery, whether armed or not, the offender takes property from the victim by the immediate use of force or fear that force will be immediately used (as in the classic line, "Your money or your life") Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if they do not comply with the extortionist's will. Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat, whereas robbery does not.


The term extortion is often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.




State mercenaries / Highwaymen


The police do the bidding of their corrupt overlords by enforcing Parliamentary rules to keep the people fenced in.


Like all secondary psychopaths they justify their actions to hide the immoral things they do every day to ‘keep the peace’. They are supposed to question immoral orders but never do, they have to work with all the other mercenaries every day and they possess this mistaken notion of brotherhood. Looking out for each other against the criminals.


To follow orders because your ‘superior’ told you to is the sign of a weak mind, when those orders are immoral they should be disregarded and ignored. To implement them is the worst kind of cowardly behaviour.


They prey on people every day, lying in wait, hiding in lay-bys, waiting around corners ready to pounce and chase their prey down. The highwayman is alive and well and found gainful employment for the state robbers. They stopped being lone individuals and became part of the organised syndicate. The pay is constant, the hours are predictable, you don’t get shot at anymore since they outlawed guns. Business is fine.


Any state mercenaries that are caught ‘over stepping’ the accepted boundaries of violence against the people seldom suffer any jail time. They get swept away to reappear when the dust has settled or find gainful employment in the growing private sector security companies, where their skills are considered superior to their civilian counterparts.



The voice in the wilderness

More on Freedom of Speech

posted 16 Feb 2017, 04:57 by mark: jennings   [ updated 16 Feb 2017, 04:57 ]

Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2000] HRLR 249:

Where Lord Justice Sedley stated
"Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided that it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."

The voice in the wilderness

Bad Science – Total Recall 2012 – The Fall.

posted 14 Feb 2017, 04:49 by mark: jennings

So yeah. I watched this and had serious misgivings about the science. The one I couldn’t ‘suspend disbelief’ was ‘The Fall’. The freefall gravity train from Britain to Australia.


A quick internet search reveals that many backroom boffs have a problem with this but none seem to see the issue the way I’m coming at it.


The theory is, that gravity pulls the train, ever accelerating towards the centre of the earth. The attained velocity is then sufficient, ever decelerating to reach the other side of the planet. All the sites I read tackle every aspect of this problem apart from what I consider to be the most important one. The fall to the centre of the planet is one of deceleration. How could it be anything other than that ?


This problem is not analogous to a weighted spring or a bouncing ball where one can rule out frictional losses and so on. The weighted spring has a rest point above which is acceleration and below which is deceleration, where gravity is always acting in the same direction.


The Fall is passing through the point where gravity is zero. An object placed there would remain there as the mass attraction in all other directions would be equal.


My simple contention without the need for any demonstration of complicated formulae is the fall to the centre of the earth is a decelerated descent. Any residual inertial momentum would quickly be negated on passing the centre point.

The voice in the wilderness

The Constitution of the United Kingdom

posted 12 Feb 2017, 08:38 by mark: jennings

There is much information to be found on this subject, but none I have found make the following assertion. I shall outline only briefly the subject so as not to divert from the importance and significance of the point I wish to make. It is fundamental to much of our daily lives, both those awake and those that still sleep.

There are those of us that will say upon reading my assertion that either way this is still part of the illusion, but I find it irrefutable that for those that sleep to wake up to this fact would embark on a journey that would lead them equally to this conclusion. If a journey is the first step, then this would be an important step to take.

The subject

Is the power of the UK Parliament unlimited ?

It is said that ‘Parliament can do anything except bind its successors’, yet the very nature of the United Kingdom itself was created by the Union with England / Scotland Acts 1707.

The notion that Parliament can do anything except bind it successors is simultaneously an assertion and a denial of its omnipotence. The omnipotence paradox which states that –

“If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.”

By this reason alone Parliament was created with limited power. If this is so, where would this be evidenced ?

A Constitution !

constitution n.
The fundamental, underlying document which establishes the government of a nation or state.

A legislative charter by which a government or group derives its authority to act.

Aristotle described a constitution as creating the frame upon which the government and laws of a society are built:
“A constitution may be defined as an organization of offices in a state, by which the method of their distribution is fixed, the sovereign authority is determined, and the nature of the end to be pursued by the association and all its members is prescribed. Laws, as distinct from the frame of the constitution, are the rules by which the magistrates should exercise their powers, and should watch and check transgressors.”

Government is bound by the documents which create it, so logically we would look to the founding document(s) of the Parliament of Great Britain, the Acts of Union 1707.

Article 1 –
"I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain [etc]"

Article 3 –
"III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain"

A document that is ‘the fundamental, underlying document which establishes the government of a nation or state’ is by definition the Constitution of the nation or state. The document by which the government derives its authority to act.

Other documents which that government may stile can be constitutional but none are the Constitution.

Can a Constitution be amended or repealed ?

Yes, providing the constitution makes provision for it, take for example –

The Constitution of the United States – Article V
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

There are no provisions made in the Acts of Union to reform, amend or repeal the Acts (Constituttion). It is self evident that a government can not alter laws that predate its existence, especially ones from which it draws its authority. To do so undermines its authority to act.

Supporters of Parliamentary sovereignty argue that Articles of the Acts have been repealed and therefore demonstrates that Parliament has the authority to repeal the Acts. This argument is premised on a falsehood, it is only true on the premise that they have the authority to repeal, but there is no authority within the ‘document which establishes the government’. Without such authority the people of the two kingdoms would be denied the rights protected by the Acts of Union on the whim of the newly formed government.

Is it likely that the two parliaments failed to include this provision or  is it more likely that they considered it to be the best protection of the rights enshrined to omit such a provision. To consider it to be a failure of foresight does a disservice to those parliamentarians, one can not make that assumption.

Either way, the provision does not exist and as a consequence there is no legal framework for the Parliament of Great Britain to reform, amend or repeal the Acts of Union.

So, to the assertion –

The Acts of Union ARE the ‘underlying documents’ which established the Parliament of Great Britain. The Acts were the dying words of the respective parliaments of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland and set down the absolute rights of the people of the two kingdoms to be retained upon union.

Unlike the US Constitution there is no provision to reform, amend or repeal the Articles of the Acts and so they remain for all time or until Great Britain becomes disunited by whatever means.

The Articles are irrevocable.

Article 25 –
“XXV. That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.”

All Laws and Statutes shall cease and become void to the extent they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of the Articles.

Once again

The Articles are irrevocable, beyond reform, amendment and repeal.

To have done any or all of these things is a breach of trust.

The voice in the wilderness

Police and Highwaymen

posted 12 Feb 2017, 08:22 by mark: jennings


HL Deb 16 July 1907 vol 178 cc483-90




"I am entirely in sympathy with what the noble Earl said with regard to police traps. In my opinion they are manifestly absurd as a protection to the public, and they are used in many counties merely as a means of extracting money from the passing traveller in a way which reminds one of the highwaymen of the Middle Ages."

This debate was just 4 years after the introduction of driving licences in 1903. The Motor Car Act made the lawful and constitutionally protected right to travel a prohibited act under statute (mallum prohibitum). No driving test was required, just the payment of 5 shillings.

From that day, every driver sacrificed their lawfully protected right to travel by conversion to a legal privilege.

The voice in the wilderness

Bad Science – Oil.

posted 12 Feb 2017, 08:05 by mark: jennings

I was processed through the British education system in the 70’s and true to Western culture, indoctrinated to believe oil was created 65 million years ago with a sudden collapse of biotic life to create the pockets of oil we now mine all around the globe.


The story goes like this –

Squishy fish, plankton and dinosaurs died in an area due to an apocalyptic event. Their bodies were immediately covered by silt preventing natural decomposition and with the action of successive layers of silt and tectonic movement the encapsulated corpses became subjected to increasing pressure and heat. In effect, pyrolysis where material is cooked in the absence of oxygen. The resulting gloop is the crude oil we now mine and refine to create oils and plastics.


The problem with this single (conveniently) explanation of oil creation is when I discovered that the Germans during World War 2 had already figured their mechanised war effort would grind to a halt if they couldn’t maintain their oil supply lines. They developed a method to artificially synthesise oil without the inconvenient 65 million year wait.


The Russians developed this line of science after the war and by the 60’s this was an established science fact within the Eastern ‘block’. Obviously still frowned upon in the Western ‘culture’ of oil exploration.


The rub for the Western explorers is the difficulty of finding the right sedimentary features to establish a drilling platform with the certainty of finding oil below. The Russians had concluded that oil is not a ‘biotic’ substance but is in fact an ‘abiotic’ substance that should be created deep in the crust of the earth and therefore could be found even under igneous rock.


It turns out the Russians were right and many of their platforms find oil at depths and below strata that Western science determines impossible. Now if this were true, that the earth naturally synthesises oil below the mantle, then the oil created there would work its way up through the crust and refill the wells currently being tapped. Once again it turns out the Russians are right. Wells considered to be spent have been revisited by western oil companies to find the production levels are back up at or near the original levels.


So here’s my problem. It’s not that I necessarily feel the need to believe one side or the other. I have no way to know definitively one way or the other in the absence of the means to do the independent research and drilling equipment to make my own conclusions. No. My problem is that an education system in the knowledge of a competing explanation for oil creation sold biotic oil as fact instead of theory.


What do I conclude from this ?


No one will be surprised that Oil is big business. Huge Business. The whole basis of what we do is predicated on oil and its products. The cost of oil changes daily on the trade markets on the basis of it’s scarcity. Our capitalistic culture values scarcity. What would happen if Huge Business admitted that the oil is never going to run out. That all they need to do is keep drawing off the existing wells at the rate they are being naturally replenished by the earth. Prices would crash. Oil production countries would lose their control. A different paradigm would be required, and that isn’t going to be allowed by Huge Business. Who by the way have now started to admit that small amounts of oil does seem to be naturally created by the earth but not in sufficient quantity to satisfy our use.


Oil is taught in school as science fact. In the west it’s ‘biotic’, in the east it’s ‘abiotic’. Two competing facts should tell anyone that science doesn’t know. Which relegates the subject to theory and raises it from science to Politics and Business. Huge Business.

The voice in the wilderness.

1-10 of 15