Table of Contents
• Definitions
• Introduction
• The Magistrates Court Of Masters
• Crown Court Of The Common Law
• The Judicial Oath
minister (n.)
c. 1300, “man consecrated to service in the Christian Church, an ecclesiastic;” also “an agent acting for a superior, one who acts upon the authority of another,” from Old French menistre “servant, valet, member of a household staff, administrator, musician, minstrel” (12c.) and directly from Latin minister (genitive ministri) “inferior, servant, priest’s assistant” (in Medieval Latin, “priest”), from minus, minor “less,” hence “subordinate” (from PIE root *mei- (2) “small”) + comparative suffix *-teros. Formed on the model of magister (see master (n.)). Minister views a man as serving a church; pastor views him as caring for a church as a shepherd cares for sheep; clergyman views him as belonging to a certain class; divine is properly one learned in theology, a theologian; parson, formerly a respectful designation, is now little better than a jocular name for a clergyman; priest regards a man as appointed to offer sacrifice. [Century Dictionary, 1895] The political sense of “high officer of the state, person appointed by a sovereign or chief magistrate of a country as the responsible head of a department of the government” is attested from 1620s, from notion of “one who renders official service service to the crown.” From 1709 as “a diplomatic representative of a country abroad.” A minister without portfolio (1841, in a French context) has cabinet status but is not in charge of a specific department.
magistrate (n.)
late 14c., “a civil officer in charge of administering laws,” also “office or function of a magistrate,” from Old French magistrat, from Latin magistratus “a magistrate, public functionary,” originally “magisterial rank or office,” from magistrare “serve as a magistrate,” from magister “chief, director” (see master (n.)). From late 17c. often meaning “justice of the peace” or other minor officials having criminal jurisdiction.
magisterial (adj.)
1630s, “of or befitting to a master or teacher or one qualified to speak with authority,” from Medieval Latin magisterialis “of or pertaining to the office of magistrate, director, or teacher,” from Late Latin magisterius “having authority of a magistrate,” from magister “chief, director” (see master (n.)). By 17c. often with a suggestion of “arrogant, imperious, domineering.” Meaning “holding the office of a magistrate, proper to a magistrate” is from 1650s (see magistrate). Related: Magisterially.
master (n.)
late Old English mægester “a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children,” from Latin magister (n.) “chief, head, director, teacher” (source of Old French maistre, French maître, Spanish and Italian maestro, Portuguese mestre, Dutch meester, German Meister), contrastive adjective (“he who is greater”) from magis (adv.) “more,” from PIE *mag-yos-, comparative of root *meg- “great.” The form was influenced in Middle English by Old French cognate maistre. From late 12c. as “man eminently or perfectly skilled in something,” also “one who is chief teacher of another (in religion, philosophy, etc.), religious instructor, spiritual guide.” Sense of “master workman or craftsman, workman who is qualified to teach apprentices and carry on a trade on his own account” is from c. 1300. The meaning “one charged with the care, direction, oversight, and control of some office, business, etc.” is from mid-13c.; specifically as “official custodian of certain animals kept for sport” early 15c. (maister of þe herte houndes; the phrase master of the hounds is attested by 1708). As a title of the head or presiding officer of an institution, late 14c.; as “captain of a merchant vessel” early 14c. In the broadest sense, “one who has power to control, use, or dispose (of something or some quality) at will,” from mid-14c. Also from mid-14c. as “one who employs another or others in his service” (in which sense the correlative word was servant, man, or apprentice); also “owner of a living creature” (a dog, a horse, also, in ancient contexts a slave); paired with slave in the legal language of the American colonies by 1705 in Virginia.
mister
as a conventional title of courtesy before a man’s Christian name, mid-15c., unaccented variant of master (n.), but without its meaning. As a form of address when the man’s name is unknown (often with a tinge of rudeness), from 1760. The disappearance of master and mister, and the restricted and obsolescent use of sir, as an unaccompanied term of address, and the like facts with regard to mistress, Mrs., and madam, tend to deprive the English language of polite terms of address to strangers. Sir and madam or ma’am as direct terms of address are old-fashioned and obsolescent in ordinary speech, and mister and lady in this use are confined almost entirely to the lower classes. [Century Dictionary, 1895]
courteous (adj.)
c. 1300, curteis, “having elegant manners, well-bred, polite, urbane,” also “gracious, benevolent,” from Old French curteis (Modern French courtois) “having courtly bearing or manners,” from curt “court” (see court (n.)) + -eis, from Latin -ensis.
court (n.)
late 12c., “formal assembly held by a sovereign,” from Old French cort “king’s court; princely residence” (11c., Modern French cour), from Latin cortem, accusative of cors (earlier cohors) “enclosed yard,” and by extension (and perhaps by association with curia “sovereign’s assembly”), “those assembled in the yard; company, cohort,” from assimilated form of com “with, together” (see com-) + stem hort- related to hortus “garden, plot of ground” (from PIE root *gher- (1) “to grasp, enclose”). Both senses of the Latin word emerged in English. From the purely physical sense come “palace, residence of a sovereign” (c. 1200), “enclosed space connected with a building or buildings” (early 14c.), and the sporting sense “smooth, level plot of ground on which a ball game is played” (1510s, originally of tennis). Also “short arm of a public street, enclosed on three sides by buildings” (1680s), formerly noted for poverty or as business districts. From the notion of “surroundings of a sovereign in his regal state” (c. 1200) comes the legal meaning “a tribunal for judicial investigation” (c. 1300, early assemblies for justice were overseen by the sovereign personally), also “hall or chamber where justice is administered” (c. 1300). As an adjective, “pertaining to a court,” late 13c.
These articles are numbered for good reason.The knowledge contained in this article will often be built upon the information available in the previous articles. Dependant on your personal knowledge of the system of law and governance, each article can stand on its own, but, the reader will most definitely gain the biggest benefit, by reading the articles in ascending numerical order, to obtain the best results.
The court system in the UNITED KINGDOM (UK) is overseen by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The Executive arm of the MOJ is: HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). Each case brought to a court must follow a set of rules. For criminal cases there are the Criminal Prosecution Rules (CPR), which can be seen here:
For civil cases there are the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), which can be viewed here:
Having read all of the previous articles, there can now be no doubt that the UNITED KINGDOM is a polity, and its government, which is you, enacts the policy for the citizens of the polity. Once the policy has been enacted at Parliament, the Executive branch oversees the policy enforcement, and administration. The Executive of the polity (UK) ensures its employees (citizens) adheres to the company policy, and use the police to ensure this happens. The Executive ensures at every stage of policy enactment and execution, that there is a government body available to assist in carrying out the policy, and bodies available to help execute punishments, for those citizens that fail to comply with policy. For a refresh click here: Framework For Law and Governance
We have a King which operates in two capacities and roles; within two jurisdictions. To mark these two different roles and jurisdictions, the Monarch wears two different crowns as evidenced below. The Roles of the Monarch can be examined in Article #3
We have a police service that must operate in two jurisdictions, and therefore have Police Officers that cover both jurisdictions. The title of Police Officer has the role of Officer, is responsible for enforcing UK policy on UK citizens, and they also have the role of Police Constable, which is solely concerned with the common law, and keeping the peace. Article #7: What Are The Police?:
It would seem logical and obvious that we would also have a court system that reflects these Two Jurisdictions, capacities, and roles, which we can clearly see, in the roles of the Monarch and the Police; and that is correct. We have a magistrates court for dealing with policy infractions and a crown court that also deals with cases of harm and injury under the common law. You can read more about the jurisdiction of common law here: Common Law Jurisdiction.
A UK citizen could find him / herself summoned to either a magistrates court, or a crown court , dependant of the offence. Minor policy infractions will be dealt with at the magistrates court. Serious policy infractions and common law offences will be dealt with at the crown court. The magistrates courts are the lower courts in the system of governance.
When you study and understand the relevant word definitions herein, the logic for understanding how a magistrates court operates, is very straightforward. We have already established the two main jurisdictions which operates on any one landmass and they are the: Legal Vs Lawful jurisdictions. See Article #6 – The Two Main Jurisdictions
We have established that a King rules over persons of the legal jurisdiction and serves the people of the lawful jurisdiction. I have also explained that a Police Officer enforces UK policies against all UK persons, and a Police Constable keeps the peace, serves the people, and protects property. We have also established that the King’s subject’s (you) have agreed, and consented to accept a new title (Mr and Mrs, Ms), and the lowest rank (commoner), in the society (polity) which the policies of the UK will be enforced against them; and these citizens (you), have then, also agreed to be policed by consent. Article #4: How You Became The Government
The premise is clear, if what I have stated and laid out in my previous articles is correct, then the justice system must also have a court which deals with the state employees, the citizens, who have broken a policy of the polity (UK), and a court which handles common law offences, the two jurisdictions of state. And that is the case, we have two courts available to handle both of these jurisdictional situations. The court allocated for policy infractions of the polity, is the magistrates court. After all the HM Courts and Tribunals Service does exactly that, it deals in all kinds of tribunals. A magistrates court is effectively a policy infraction court, it is a place where masters (Mr, Mrs, Ms) go to be reprimanded for breaking the laws they enacted. That is why it is called a magistrates court; magistrate means master, and it deals predominately with: Mr’s and Mrs’ and nothing else. The titles Mr and Mrs, Ms, Messers are all abbreviations of the word master.
I have evidenced that all citizens of a polity volunteered to join that organisations society, and in doing so elected to have a new rank in that society, that of a: commoner. The newly appointed commoner also gets a new title to go with their rank: Mr, Mrs, Ms, Messers. How many persons who are reading this, regularly use their titles “Mr and Mrs Smith”, or “Mr and Mrs Jones”, and have no idea what those titles mean, or how it could possibly relate to the Bible?
The Bible says:
Mr, Mrs, Ms and Messers are all titles that belong to a persons name, and that all of those abbreviations mean master? “Belongs to a persons name” – not your name – but a persons name. Man’s person. The Bible specifically informs you not to be called master, yet you may call yourself master, and may let others address you as master nearly every single day. These are just a few points that are revealed in Strong’s Concordance, and in the KJV 1611, Bible.
The Bible also has this to say about person and titles [with added emphasis]:
• Job 32:21 – 22, KJV 1611 – Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. 22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
“Take me away”, that sounds bad, that sounds to me like dying to God.
The Bible also has this to say specifically about “persons”:
• Job 13:10, KJV 1611 - He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.
• Romans 2:11, KJV 1611 – For there is no respect of persons with God.
• Proverbs 24:23, KJV 1611 – These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in Judgment.
• James 2:9, KJV 1611 – But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
• Acts 10:34, KJV 1611 – Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.
The above message about persons from The Bible, can be heard when Judge Kavanaugh takes his oath as a Supreme Court judge in the video link below, when he affirms he will be “no respecter of persons”. More evidence of the supremacy of the Word of God, and that The Bible is the Word of The Law. So there you have a top judge, who presides over all legal matters swearing on oath to be “no respecter of persons,” – which is very likely to be you reading this. All UK judges are also governed by what it states in The Bible, so the same will apply here, although I have found no public declaration such as this:
It would seem that a “person” is not good in the eyes of God or man. Bad in both jurisdictions.
A “person” is a very specific legal status which government, judiciary, police and local authorities, have jurisdiction (control) over. Here are some definitions of the word “person” from some the Parliamentary Acts:
• The “Interpretation Act 1978″ at Schedule II, Section 4.(5) states:
The definition of “person”, so far as it includes bodies corporate, applies to any provision of an Act whenever passed relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction.
The same Act at Section 21. (2) also states: This Act binds the Crown.
• The Petition Of Right [1627] states that a ‘person’ is a ‘Souldier and Marriner’.
“Soul-dier”, perhaps that is a clue for the Christians reading this as to why it is so bad in the eyes of The LORD God.
So, we have seen that the two areas of jurisdiction flow down from the Monarch, to the government, and to the courts, and the citizenry (commoners). It is easy to understand then that a magistrates court is actually a masters court which deals predominantly with Mr’s and Mrs’ for UK policy infractions. It is a tribunal in fact, for citizens who breach UK Acts of parliament (minor breaches), like traffic offences etc. If you are in a magistrates court I can assure you that you are there; and they will treat you as: a citizen commoner at an employees tribunal. Whatever rights you think you have or want, will be whatever the magistrates feel like giving you (none). Think of a prisoner discussing his rights with the prison governor after violating some prison policy that the prisoner himself enacted, and agreed to abide by, not good.
In every courtroom you will see the UNITED KINGDOM Coat of Arms – as shown above. On the Coat of Arms it states: DIEU ET MON DROIT, which is French for: God and my Right.
• Psalms 22:21, KJV 1611 – Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
You have seen the two jurisdictions, which effectively boils down to; UK and God. A citizen has “rights”. Even a prisoner has “rights”. The rights a prisoner has, are the ones the prison system allows him to have:
Robert Menard explains some “rights” that a citizen has: [warning adult language in the video]
I have been in both, magistrates courts, and crown courts many times, from Cumbria to Cornwall. I have had my own cases, and been to “clients” cases. I have sat in the public gallery watching various cases, and I have been in the witness box at these courts many times. I would strongly advise anyone who is serious about learning law to do the same, go sit in the public gallery for a morning, watch and make notes. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch any case. You are allowed to take a notebook and pen to make notes.
Crown court deals with the more serious side of policy violation, where longer prison terms may be applicable, and indictable offences like planning enforcement cases, where there is a “crime” but no injured party. Crown court also deals with common law offences of: harm loss and injury. Below is a table of offences where some common law offences are listed:
There are not pages and pages of common law offences, because there is a limited amount of ways that you can hurt someone physically and cause a loss. There are a million different policies you can fall foul of however.
If you are seriously interested in learning about these matters I challenge you to go and sit in a magistrate’s court for a few hours and watch the cattle being herded in for milking. Every single one will be called a Mr, Mrs, or Ms and every single one will lose money. It is a tribunal court, where naughty employees are ushered in, and told off for breaking the laws that they made as a commoner and are relieved of some cash. It is all about the money (currency) at magistrates court. It is about currency, not because the crown want it, but because you want it. The Crown already have the currency, they actually produce the currency, they do not need the currency; you do, so they take it from you, and if you study the word definitions in the articles here you will understand why.
Common law offences, by definition, are not necessarily Acts of Parliament. The common law is case law. I also challenge you to sit in on some crown court hearings. Note the cases for policy infractions, and the court usher will call the defendant: Mr John Doe, and note the common law cases of harm they will simply call in to court: John Doe. Watch, take notes, it is very interesting, and soon you will be guessing whether they will use a title to call the defendant, or not, based upon the jurisdiction for case: UK policy or common law.
For a common law offence they do not need the title of the citizen because it is a case for harm, they need the body, the man. For a case of policy they need you to belief you are the title, the legal person, their citizen. It is not about the body, or the man, for policy infractions but the title, the person. When the usher calls “Mr Smith” to court, Mr Smith will stand up and walk in, thus confirming he is in fact: Mr Smith, the citizen, to which the policies and court case apply. Go to court, find out for yourself.
Similarly, if your insurance has run out on your car, a Police Officer will want to know your name, driving licence details, and address. He has to make sure he is dealing with a Mr or Mrs employee of the UK because only UK employees are guilty of breaking UK code and policy. Once you give him “your details” you will be processed at masters (magistrates) court.
If a Police Constable sees you punch someone outside of a nightclub, he will arrest you immediately, on the spot and have you in the back of the van without barely speaking a word to you. Why? You committed a common law offence (harm) and you will be dealt with under the common law. If it is a relatively minor offence you may start off at a magistrates court, and it may get passed up to a crown court. If it is an outright serious case of harm then you will go straight to a (common law) crown court.
Some of the Uk Acts of Parliament will also include some common law offences; offences of harm, loss, and injury. Because these offences are wrong in any corporation, and in any country, and in any language, they are universally; wrong. The government of the UK have also spelled it out for you in some of their policies as well.
You should by now be beginning to understand why a Judge might take two oaths. The word definitions below should give you a very good idea about what oath, belongs to which of the two jurisdictions. Word definitions really do tell the whole story if you study them closely enough.
The judicial oath link: Judicial Oath
allegiance (n.)
“ties or obligations of a citizen or subject to a government or sovereign,” late 14c., alligeaunce, formed in English from Anglo-French legaunce “loyalty of a liege-man to his lord,
faithful (n.)
early 14c., “sincerely religious, devout, pious,” especially in reference to Christian practice; mid-14c., “loyal (to a lord, friend, spouse, etc.); true; honest, trustworthy,” from faith + -ful. From late 14c. in reference to a tale, a report, etc., “accurate, reliable, true to the facts.” The noun sense of “true believer, one who is full of faith”
majesty (n.)
c. 1300, mageste, “greatness or grandeur of exalted rank or character, imposing loftiness, stateliness, qualities appropriate to rulership,” from Old French majeste “grandeur, nobility” (12c.), from Latin maiestatem (nominative maiestas) “greatness, dignity, elevation, honor, excellence,” from stem of maior (neuter maius), comparative of magnus “great, large, big” (of size), “abundant” (of quantity), “great, considerable” (of value), “strong, powerful” (of force); of persons, “elder, aged,” also, figuratively, “great, mighty, grand, important,” from suffixed form of PIE root *meg- “great.” Earliest English use is with reference to God or Christ; as a title of address or dignity to kings and queens (late 14c.), it is from Romance languages and originated in the Roman Empire.
sovereign (n.)
late 13c., soverain, “superior, ruler, master, one who is superior to or has power over another,” from Old French soverain “sovereign, lord, ruler,” noun use of adjective meaning “highest, supreme, chief” (see sovereign (adj.)). Specifically by c. 1300 as “a king or queen, one who exercises dominion over people, a recognized supreme ruler of a realm.” Also of Church authorities and heads of orders or houses as well as local civic officials.
realm (n.)
c. 1300, reaume, “kingdom, domain under a sovereign, royal jurisdiction,” from Old French reaume, later realme, variants (in part by influence of Old French reial “regal,” from Latin regalis) of roiaume “kingdom.”
office (n.)
mid-13c., “a post in government or administration, an employment to which certain duties are attached, secular position of authority or responsibility,” from Anglo-French and Old French ofice “place or function; divine service” (12c. in Old French) and directly from Latin officium “a service, kindness, favor; an obligatory service, official duty, function, business; ceremonial observance” (in Medieval Latin, “church service”).
secular (adj.)
c. 1300, seculer, in reference to clergy, “living in the world, not belonging to a religious order,” also generally, “belonging to the state” (as opposed to the Church), from Old French seculer, seculare (Modern French séculier) and directly from Late Latin saecularis “worldly, secular,…etc., “not overtly religious.” In English, in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality, from 1850s. Related: Secularly.
The above Judicial Oath confirms everything that I have stated about the two jurisdictions in relation to God and a polity, which Monarchs, Police, and Judges have to take in to consideration. A Judge takes two oaths; 1. To God and the Monarch in his role of service to Gods Christian people, on the Lawful side; 2. To God and the Monarch in relationship to his role of office and state, ruling in the secular polity, under the Kings legal jurisdiction, in a God less world of the dead legal fictions. Why is it that you think a Judge wears black? He is dealing with the dead. Dead entities, corp – orations, fictions.
*Note: the eagle eyed amongst you will note the word “people” in the legal jurisdiction oath. The word itself is prefaced by the words “…all manner of…”:
manner (n.)
c. 1200, manere, “kind, sort, variety,” from Anglo-French manere, Old French maniere “fashion, method, manner, way; appearance
Some persons have the appearance of people, and even be-lie-ve that they are; as you might now possibly agree.
• Legal maxim: Judici satis paena est quod Deum habet ultorem. It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God.
If you feel that others would benefit from reading this article, please consider sharing it. If you would like to find out more about law and governance then you can start by reading my articles in ascending numerical order which will garner the best results for you.
More articles on Law and Governance can be read from the menu below.
If you feel like buying me a coffee, or making a donation, that would be greatly appreciated.
In good faith
CME