By what quo warranto does the CPS have?

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

A question of “quo warranto”.

By what Authority does the Crown Prosecution Service have lawful status?

In order to establish acuity, is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under the Crown monarchy or the Crown Temple?

According to your own website, the CPS was set up in 1986 as an independent “authority” (even though there is no Authority as the UK has been under bankruptcy laws since the 1860’s) to prosecute criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales. (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/repor...)
But by what authority? It is, after all, a corporation and therefore a legal fiction.

In light of this, it is very important to establish acuity so that we have the right charge for the set of facts and the two questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. If the Crown Prosecution Service is under the Monarchy by Common Law and bound in office of the constitution to the sovereign oath, then why does it use “statute law” (i.e. admiralty law- a fiction) to prosecute? Common law states: “not to enter into mischievous contracts or promises”. Yet, they do so with The Law Society that operates using legalese, i.e. a style that uses the abstruse (Difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge) technical vocabulary of the law in order to confuse the layman. This is not constitutional.

2. If it is under the Crown Temple (a corporation-a fiction) and the UK is also a corporation as registered on “Dun and Bradstreet”, then the Attorney General’s Office would also come under the corporation of The Ministry of justice and is also registered as such. It appears that these two corporations are in co-conspiracy as corporate revenue collection companies using “Statute ACTS “ (the force of law yet a fiction) and administering and manipulating justice in corporate courts as arbitrators not judges by deceiving the people using admiralty law.

Where can the justice be if pecuniary deception in order to obtain advantage is the motivation, and they are deceiving the public by using fictional corporation and fictional statute law above the Common Law?

Given the City of London is a State and a corporation unto itself and separate from England, by what "Quo Warranto" does it have to grant “any authority” as a corporation to The CPS and The law Society (whom are also within the borders of this independent City), to prosecute the people of the land “outside of it's borders” using fictional statute & mercantile law above the common law and who grants this said power and by what right as a fictional corporation?

A company can be party to a criminal conspiracy, but only with at least two other conspirators who are human beings - including at least one who is an appropriate officer of the company and acting within the scope of his authority.

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC (1971), Director of Public Prosecutions (until Oct 2008). Keir Starmer, QC (1985), Director of Public Prosecutions (from Oct 2008) Aularian: alumni of St Edmind’s Hall , Oxford

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Russell Cocks

Stuart left an annotation ()

Please also confirm that an Authority of any kind actually exists given the UK a Corporation and is under bankruptcy rules since the 1860's

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Our ref: 2028

Thursday, 29 October 2009

Dear Mr Cocks

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

Thank you for your request for information.

Your request was received on 29 October 2009and I am dealing with it
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please note
there is a twenty working day limit (from receipt of request) in which
we are required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

The deadline for your request is 26 November 2009. However, we will
endeavour to respond sooner.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I
will let you know that likely charges before proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

Miss Kadir
Information Management Unit
Crown Prosecution Service
www.cps.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Cocks

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

Please find attached a response to your recent request for information.

Yours sincerely

Miss S Kadir

Information Management Unit

Crown Prosecution Service

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

[1]www.cps.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cps.gov.uk/

gary smith left an annotation ()

Nice cop out answer to point you to a website that will not have the answers you requested ..Must be too much like hard work for them as they are not making any money out of it or it just shows the Person who replies is to Lazy or not Capable of answering you questions so they Should Pass it on to someone who Should answer this

pete left an annotation ()

I wud write back to them, saying a few different things, that A) your not asking for their advice under foi, but are stating the facts b0 you r not a citizen, and one of the people who grants the govt to have an office to work in c) that they will comply with all future correspondence outside of legal fiction land, and as people.

something like that anyways

Dave Townsend left an annotation ()

I am fascinated as to why people do not consider this to be a complete answer. Are they unable to look up statutes themselves? I am curious as to exactly who they think is being lazy here.

Stuart left an annotation ()

Since without Whiterod's opening of parliament it's an unbalanced government, therefore all legislation or treaty is void ab initio.

Not to mention the UK is an Estate-in-Trust & without the Grantors permission(Us)and at the detriment to the benificiaries interests (us) puts them the "Trustees" of the said Estate in Breach of Duty and again makes it void ab initio.

A man cannot give more power than he only has. The electorates - The creators- vote them into office, they become the created and the created cannot usurp it's creator.

The sovereign power resides in and comes only from the People. "The People" are the sovereigns. All the power and authority the government has ... was given to it by the People! If we don't have the right to do a thing, then we cannot delegate such a right to any government! ("We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have!")

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ...

Equity does not recognise a statute cloaked as fraud and legislation cannot overule a constitutional law- including the Magna Carta!

Dave Townsend left an annotation ()

'Pon my word, you do have an interesting, nay, unique view of the Constitution. Fortunately, amongst the lessons my Father taught me was not to argue over the voices in other peoples heads.

Fletcher left an annotation ()

Lord Hewart of Bury warned about this state of affairs in his book entitled The New Despotism, written
in 1929. The following is taken from his book:
‘The constitutional principle at issue is that the recognition by the Common Law of the supremacy of Parliament is based on an assumption, that Parliament will not surrender its law making powers to the Executive (or an international body) nor on an uncontrolled and uncertain basis.
‘Two of the leading features of the Constitution are the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law. (Principle of legal certainty) Whilst it may be considered a serious undertaking to tamper with either of them, by the use of aningenious method of using one to defeat the other, it establishes a despotism to the ruins of both.
---
Also look up -10 – 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250.
Halsbury's Laws of England/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (VOLUME 1(1) (2001 REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION/(1) SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE SUBJECT/1. Scope.

FACT - There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation.

The collection of revenue by such means is extortion, and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times. Separation of powers Today, in the year 2011, we find for example, that in the council tax regulations, the billing authority, the prosecuting authority and the enforcement authority are all vested in the same body. The same bodies even purport to issue their own legal documents, by tacit agreement with the Courts. In our system of Common Law, the rule of law demands that we have a separation of powers. Today, the powers are not separated. The executive is not a distinct, free-standing leg of the tripod. The executive now emerges directly from within the elected Chamber of the legislature where previously it emanated directly from the Monarch. That leads to constitutional confusion—because the executive has seized and misuses Parliament’s democratic credentials for its own, destructive, purposes. Fortunately, we have something to which we can turn to preserve our ancient laws and freedoms. We have the Oath that Her Majesty The Queen took at her coronation by which she is solemnly bound and from which no one in England, Wales and Scotland has released her. At Her Coronation the Queen swore to govern us, “according to [our] respective laws and customs”. Certainly, among our reputed “customs”, is precisely that invaluable and widely admired tripartite division of the powers. The judiciary is part and parcel of our customary system of internal sovereignty—“the Queen in Parliament”. It is one of the three separate but symbiotic powers, and it is a capricious and self-serving contention that it should not have the power to preserve the authority of the legislature over the executive. It is a constitutional principle that the assent of the Queen & Parliament is prerequisite to the establishment of a Court which can operate a system of administrative law in Her Majesty’s Courts in England. This was confirmed by Lord Denning during the debates on the European Communities Amendment Bill, HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc246-95 246 at 250: “There is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. No court can be set up in England, no court can exist in England, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. That has been so ever since the Bill of Rights.” 08

Fletcher left an annotation ()

Oh Also would have been helpfull if the Crown Prosecution Service actually made an efort to answer the question as the Links are worse than useless!

Stuart left an annotation ()

An order issued by any Judicial chair occupant who elects to ignore the evidence or acts in contempt of the
evidence presented to the judicial chair occupant; amounts to a false instrument, which is abuse of office and leading to the imposition of costs attached to the false instrument - House of Lords ruling - Elman -v- Myers

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

The link to the CPS website appears to have been pulled already, how convenient, for anyone trying to squirm out and cover up. They are blatent and caught red handed in corrupt practice. Not the first time I have witnessed this take down of web pages and sites, to hide, their hands.Sorry, we can't find the page requested.
Page not found (404 error)

You've reached the Crown Prosecution Service, the Government Department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/repor

Uwe Bergman left an annotation ()

"Given the City of London is a State"

These days the English government have declared it to be one of the 32 (super, in size) London Boroughs and an inner London Borough as opposed to an outer London Borough.

Mr Janik left an annotation ()

Lets examine the facts (I'm not a lawyer)

(1) The request was "By what Authority does the Crown Prosecution Service have lawful status?"

(2) The Request was followed by various comments which did not form part of the "Request".

(3) The CPS provided a direct and simple answer to the Request, which was

""The CPS derives its status and authority from an Act of Parliament, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA).

Part 1 of the Act establishes the CPS itself, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as its head, and its various members of staff. Part 1 also sets out the functions and the powers of the DPP, Crown Prosecutors and non-legal staff. ""

(4) I don't know why the CPS decided to waste time, energy and resources in preparing a M$ Word reply when the same information could have been provided in a simple plain text email.

(5) The End of the Request.

(6) Stuart repeatedly refers to "UK has been under bankruptcy laws since the 1860’s" but tantalising though this surprising claim is, provides no substantiating details.

(7) Stuart also refers to "Given the City of London is a State and a corporation unto itself
and separate from England, by what "Quo Warranto" . The City of London is several things:-

(a) a unitary-type of local government authority, but not a complete unitary authority because of Boris' GLA.

(b) an ordinary local authority meaning a normal borough council

(c) a charity

(d) an exception to the general definition of a local authority and a legacy of the ancient past.

Stuart keeps secret from us anything supporting his claim the City of London is a state. He wrongly assumes we, the public, have a clue about "Quo Warranto" which I assume is a question about its legitimacy. A quick Google search shows I'm correct despite never having learned Latin Both of Stuart's assertions are interesting. If he would like to write a detailed article on them, I would like to publish it on-line.

(8) Gary Smith is unhappy with the CPS answer. I disagree. They did answer the question and in full.

(9) Pete's response is a bit jumbled. Careful thinking is usually needed when dealing with the authorities and that is not evident in Pete's annotation.

(10) Dave Townsend's comments of 4 December 2010 make me smile. I have to concur.

(11) Stuart's response about White Rod (taking the mickey out of Blackrod?) shows he has lots of feelings about the matter but he has not carefully analysed all those feelings and then produced evidence or explanations to illustrated his claims. One has to abandon emotion and present a well researched and carefully articulated argument.

(12) The CPS, the Courts, the Police and the governments, both nationally and locally, are not perfect. All have lots of faults and some of their personnel are crooks who get away with it. To effectively criticise them you need to be able to carefully write your criticisms, break them into small parts and find evidence to support your belief. You also need to discover basic things about the Laws of England and you will eventually need access to a university's law library or a law library at a higher level of court. Its not going to be either quick or easy and it will take lots of time. Consider doing an OU law course part-time (free if on a low income).

(13) Society is better when it has articulate critics but those critics need a fuller and better understanding of the subjects they criticise. Believing something is wrong is insufficient when trying to convince others that your belief is correct - you need proof which you can show. No proof means a weak argument however passionate the advocate.

(14) If Stuart fancies another go then how about questioning the authority of parliament to make laws? I certainly would like to know the answer. Secondary what authority has parliament and the executive to breech the commitments the UK freely and voluntarily gave to upholding the terms of international treaties.

(15) Very few things are perfect in this world and when, or if, you encountered them their existence is finite.

Paul Janik.